Baptism

[Lisa4Catholics]

SPOKENWORD:

HI Cove ,So you will give your child the choice to get out but you wont give him the choice to come in. Wheres the freewill? God Bless

Your argument doesn’t hold water spoken.You can use that same argument to tell parents they shouldn’t take their child to church because they are not old enough to decide.God Bless

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Lisa4Catholics:

Your argument doesn’t hold water spoken.You can use that same argument to tell parents they shouldn’t take their child to church because they are not old enough to decide.God Bless

Hi Lisa,I understand what your saying but Spiritual matters are for us individually to decide. You are not going to be holding your childs hand when we come before the throne for judgement.Yes we try to do the best for our children but when it comes to freewill its up to us individually.Tell me whats wrong by waiting to let your child make their own decision. Do you believe they loose Gods protection? God holds his babies under HIS wings. God Bless

 

[TNT]

SPOKENWORD:

Infants are not capable of using the free will God gave them.That being the case they have not made a choice to be baptised. A parents will is not an infants will. Maybe thats why it is a good idea to wait until the child can make their own decision. God Bless

"That being the case they have not made a choice to be" Circumcised… Identical logic?
Q1. Is a newborn in a Christian family, a Christian at birth?
Q2. Is a newborn in a Non-Christian family, a Christian at birth?
If that infant dies in either case do they go straight to final salvation. (Heaven).
Q3. If they are Christians, how did it happen?
Q4. I they are not Christian, then do non-Christians go to heaven?

Q5. Is it “a good idea to wait until the child can make their own decision” in any other occasion of the parent/newborn/infant relationship? Or is that a Bad idea?
Or is your “good idea” exclusively applicable to the Child/baptism subject?
Q5. If God demanded circumcision on a newborn, was He acting outside the free will of the newborn?
Q6. If He was (as seems self evident by your posts) then did God change His mind on Pentecost?
Q7. Could one apply “Honor thy father and mother” in the case of Baptism. ie that we can assume a newborn would not object (sin against this commandment) to honoring parents’ desires/ firm beliefs?
These are quite a few questions, but, since I have your background posts, they need not be lengthy.
Thanks,
Just trying to follow the logic.
God Bless

 

[Mickey]

SPOKENWORD:

God holds his babies under HIS wings. God Bless

God holds everyone under His care. All the better to be baptized whether infant or adult.

 

[cove]

SPOKENWORD:

HI Cove ,So you will give your child the choice to get out but you wont give him the choice to come in. Thats what I call half truth. Wheres the freewill? God Bless

I will never give him the choice to get out. Just like I would never give him the choice to not wear his hat.

I am not sure I understand your “not the choice to come in”. I as an adult have had many opportunities and have taken them to reafirm my baptismal vows. I have always been given the “choice” to come in. My child would never be denied this “choice”.

My parents made the “choice” for me as loving and caring parents when they had me baptised as an infant. What a beautiful and wonderful thing for a parent to do for their child. Giving them the gift of rebirth in Christ. I am just a little baffled why this parental “choice” bothers you so. Do you also think it is wrong for a parent to make other life choices for their child? Why do you think it is OK for a parent to not baptise their infant? What good is there in not baptising an infant? Why are you so against this act of love for ones child. What harm do you see in it?

I facilitate baptisimal classes at my church. There is nothing more beautiful to me then to hear the covenants that these parents have written to their children. The deep love and commitment that they have for God and their child is inspiring. It is truly a beautiful experience and also reafirms my faith. How wonderful that these parents are ministering to their faith community by sharing the hope of rebirth in Christ with their child and with all of us.

Peace!

 

[TNT]

SPOKENWORD:

Tell me whats wrong by waiting to let your child make their own decision. Do you believe they lose Gods protection? God holds his babies under HIS wings.

I think I’m getting your convictions a little clearer:

1. The RCC was correct to pronounce the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
2. They just did not go far enough and pronounce the dogma of every human’s immaculate conception.
3. Is that a fair assessment? Yes or no is fine.

 

[Mickey]

cove:

I I am just a little baffled why this parental “choice” bothers you so.

Sometimes Catholics leave the Church and embrace other doctrines so intensely, that no amount of reason can convince them to think otherwise. One of the most adhered to doctrines in baptist theology is that of “believer’s baptism”. I have a feeling that it does not matter what is presented to SPOKENWORD. He is not going to embrace infant baptism until the Holy Spirit brings him back home to Rome!

 

[mercygate]

Mickey:

One of the most adhered to doctrines in baptist theology is that of “believer’s baptism”.

This insistence on “believers baptism” seems so eccentric to me, since people who believe in that largely do not believe that baptism actually does anything; it is merely an ordinance – symbolic, perhaps, but not efficacious in any way.

So, why is it assumed that someone who was baptised as an infant does not choose Christ for himself? Don’t we do that every day? Isn’t that what the Christian walk is about?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Mickey:

Sometimes Catholics leave the Church and embrace other doctrines so intensely, that no amount of reason can convince them to think otherwise. One of the most adhered to doctrines in baptist theology is that of “believer’s baptism”. I have a feeling that it does not matter what is presented to SPOKENWORD. He is not going to embrace infant baptism until the Holy Spirit brings him back home to Rome!

Hi Mickey,You do make a good point,just one confession away. God Bless P/S Im beginning to run out of oxyegen.

 

[Mickey]

mercygate:

This insistence on “believers baptism” seems so eccentric to me, since people who believe in that largely do not believe that baptism actually does anything; it is merely an ordinance – symbolic, perhaps, but not efficacious in any way.

So, why is it assumed that someone who was baptised as an infant does not choose Christ for himself? Don’t we do that every day? Isn’t that what the Christian walk is about?

I wish I had more answers mercygate,

I’ve always been perplexed by “believer’s baptism”. It seems natural to me that christians should receive the grace of baptism as an infant. As we age, we are susceptible to more and more grievous sin. Hence, we continue to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Mickey - Thanks for the compliment. What can I say, I was inspired. Also, I’m a new parent so perhaps that’s where I’m coming from?

C.M. - I too was away from the Catholic Church for a number of years but was called back when I was placed in a position of defending the faith against a bigoted anti-Catholic attack. Now, my wife calls me the “Catholic Defender” - a title I do enjoy.

exrc - while I respect your zealous belief, I do believe it is somewhat misguided. And your comment to C.M. was just plain rude. I think you owe him an apology (or at least an explanation for your lack of charity.)

Spokenword - As a long-time member of these forums I respect your opinions and appreciate your comments. Please continue to post your remarks. You are always welcome in my book.

:ehh: But I still don’t understand why you think that infant baptism is God contradicting his promise of free will. Please offer me a more detailed explanation as to why you think this is so, other than simply the conclusion that it hinders free will.

Peace,

 

[Theodred]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Ted, By your logic then everyone would be saved because Jesus came to save all,but the Truth is many have been called but few are chosen. Why is that? Maybe freewill to recieve and act upon this Gift.of Salvation. God Bless

Everyone was saved!! This fact is totally missed by Evangelical Protestants because they are so worried about themselves. They can’t imagine a God who isn’t as selfish as they are. The redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross saved everyone.

You are assuming that I don’t hold a place for man’s cooperation with grace because I didn’t mention it. However, I do. But, unlike you, I place man’s works second in God’s work of salvation. You, however, have placed man’s exercise of freewill (which by definition is a work) first in the order of salvation.

Your claim:

1. free will act of faith on the part of man (perhaps saying the salvation prayer)
2. salvation

The Catholic Church has taught me:

1. salvific grace
2. man’s cooperation with salvific grace
3. more grace to cooperate further
4. further cooperation of man
5. more grace to cooperate further
6. further cooperation of man
   and on and on…

Your claim boils down to salvation by works. The Catholic position boils down to by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God (Eph 2:8).

Few are chosen, because few choose to cooperate with God’s grace to the extent that Our Blessed Lord commanded. We have the grace to completely abandon ourselves to God, but how many actually say yes to this grace? I have no clue, but God will know when salvation is accomplished. Being saved, you see, has a past, present and future. I was saved by Our Blessed Lord’s work of redemption two thousand years ago (along with everyone else) (Eph 1:7). I am being saved by my baptism and the grace that God gives me now (Phil 2:12; Rom 6:3-5; Gal 3:27). I will be saved if I persevere to the end (Matt 25:31-46).

You still have not addressed my points regarding Our Blessed Lord rendering spiritual benefits and healing for people on account of a third party’s faith. If such a thing as healing an infant on account of a parent’s faith was impossible, then certainly it wouldn’t be in the bible??

 

[Tom]

We are taught that there are many spirits, but only one Holy Spirit, but many others who will lead many into destruction. We are also taught to test these spirits. Since our Baptism is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit into an individual I am compelled to question, which spirit is guiding someone who would prevent or teach others not to allow the Holy Spirit from entering and guiding a young person thru their most formative years? Would the Spirit of God demand a person must be of the age of reason to be Baptized? Would the Spirit of God welcome the infant? We of course know the answer in our heart. This is a fundamental question, not an attack against an individual (PLEASE don’t take it as such), but meant to provoke your thoughts on why one would demand an infant not be Baptized. Why would a church want a child to be raised without the Holy Spirit as a guide? The Scriptural references and writings of the first and second century Church all point toward infant Baptism. The only harm I can see is to not Baptise.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Théodred:

Everyone was saved!! This fact is totally missed by Evangelical Protestants because they are so worried about themselves. They can’t imagine a God who isn’t as selfish as they are. The redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross saved everyone.

You are assuming that I don’t hold a place for man’s cooperation with grace because I didn’t mention it. However, I do. But, unlike you, I place man’s works second in God’s work of salvation. You, however, have placed man’s exercise of freewill (which by definition is a work) first in the order of salvation.

Your claim:

1. free will act of faith on the part of man (perhaps saying the salvation prayer)
2. salvation

The Catholic Church has taught me:

1. salvific grace
2. man’s cooperation with salvific grace
3. more grace to cooperate further
4. further cooperation of man
5. more grace to cooperate further
6. further cooperation of man
   and on and on…

Your claim boils down to salvation by works. The Catholic position boils down to by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God (Eph 2:8).

Few are chosen, because few choose to cooperate with God’s grace to the extent that Our Blessed Lord commanded. We have the grace to completely abandon ourselves to God, but how many actually say yes to this grace? I have no clue, but God will know when salvation is accomplished. Being saved, you see, has a past, present and future. I was saved by Our Blessed Lord’s work of redemption two thousand years ago (along with everyone else) (Eph 1:7). I am being saved by my baptism and the grace that God gives me now (Phil 2:12; Rom 6:3-5; Gal 3:27). I will be saved if I persevere to the end (Matt 25:31-46).

You still have not addressed my points regarding Our Blessed Lord rendering spiritual benefits and healing for people on account of a third party’s faith. If such a thing as healing an infant on account of a parent’s faith was impossible, then certainly it wouldn’t be in the bible??

Those third party cases where for the purpose of building the faith of those that were there.It was not the norm. I do not believe salvation by works. I do works because of my salvation. I am saved by grace though faith. I do agree.Faith without works is dead. God Bless

 

[mercygate]

SPOKENWORD:

I do not believe salvation by works . . . I am saved by grace though faith. I do agree.Faith without works is dead. God Bless

This is perfectly consistent with Catholic teaching. Yet Catholic theology allows for works to be joined with faith as part of working out our “salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:12) In this secondary but congruent way, God, in his generosity, permits us to acquire a kind of merit as we journey towards him. I sometimes think of it in terms of Our Lord in his youth, who “increased in wisdom and instature, and in favor with God and man.” (Lk 2:52) If Jesus is God how can he increase in wisdom or favor with God? If we are saved by grace through faith, then where is there room for any merit in works? Only by the generosity of God, recognizing and valuing our loving efforts, done in his Name with the free will he gave us. This is quite a different thing from any idea of “works righteousness” ('Nother thread!)

I now return you to the discussion of baptism.

 

[Theodred]

SPOKENWORD:

Those third party cases where for the purpose of building the faith of those that were there.

Then how do you explain Jesus’ words to the paralytic: Child, your sins are forgiven… Which is easier to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Rise, pick up your mat and walk?” (Mk 2:5, 9).

Jesus didn’t perform miracles to build people’s faith then, or now. He performed mircles to make manifest His power, His power to save: “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth” – he said to the paralytic, “I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home.” He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in sight of everyone (Mk 2:10-12).

These miracles may increase faith, but only for those who have faith to begin with. If mircles gave man faith, then everyone would be a Christian today. No, more importantly, these healings are signs that show us of faith that Our Blessed Lord has the power to do as He promises.

SPOKENWORD:

I do not believe salvation by works. I do works because of my salvation. I am saved by grace though faith. I do agree.Faith without works is dead. God Bless

No you do not. You stated quite clearly that you believe in salvation by works when you wrote:

“Every one is responsable for thier own salvation.”

“Tell me whats wrong by waiting to let your child make their own decision.”

“Are you given the choice to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and your savior?”

“Accepting,” “deciding,” taking responsibility are all works.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Théodred:

No you do not. You stated quite clearly that you believe in faith by works when you wrote:

“Every one is responsable for thier own salvation.”

“Tell me whats wrong by waiting to let your child make their own decision.”

“Are you given the choice to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and your savior?”

“Accepting,” “deciding,” taking responsibility are all works.

I see,So when we are given this gift,there is nothing else required on our part? No action necessary?. Sounds like once saved always saved theoligy. I can just continue on living the way I did before for im all set. Interesting?

 

[Theodred]

SPOKENWORD:

I see,So when we are given this gift,there is nothing else required on our part? No action necessary?. Sounds like once saved always saved theoligy. I can just continue on living the way I did before for im all set. Interesting?

No. You are either skimming my posts, or wilfully ignoring and misconstruing what I wrote above:
Théodred:

You are assuming that I don’t hold a place for man’s cooperation with grace because I didn’t mention it. However, I do. But, unlike you, I place man’s works second in God’s work of salvation. You, however, have placed man’s exercise of freewill (which by definition is a work) first in the order of salvation.

Your claim:

1. free will act of faith on the part of man (perhaps saying the salvation prayer)
2. salvation

The Catholic Church has taught me:

1. salvific grace
2. man’s cooperation with salvific grace
3. more grace to cooperate further
4. further cooperation of man
5. more grace to cooperate further
6. further cooperation of man
   and on and on…

 

[Servant1]

Without arguing about children, infants, and all that… the premie of the FIRST post starting the thread is inaccurate.

The Greek word “baptizo” or “vaptizo” (depending on how literal one wishes to be with one’s transliteration) is NOT limited to meaning immersion or submersion. Those who teach it as such teach it that way to bolster their own foregone conclusion about what it MUST mean TO THEM.

I’ve gone straight to the Greeks. I’ve sat with Greek people who are scholars of both koine’ and Hellenic (classical) Greek, and they flat tell me that to limit the definition of “baptizo” to immersion or submersion is simply incorrect use of the Greek language. They don’t have an axe to grind with us regarding our translations of their language… they simply know their own language.

That settles that issue for me. I don’t think Dave or anyone else on this forum (unless they’re Greek and have better qualifications) has any better authority on the meaning and use of that word.

Arguing about infants and all that is another story. But as to what that Greek word means, I think that pretty well settles it.

I’m done. “baptizo” does NOT just mean total immersion or submersion under the water. End of that particular aspect of the discussion as far as I’m concerned.

 

[mercygate]

Servant1:

The Greek word “baptizo” or “vaptizo” (depending on how literal one wishes to be with one’s transliteration) is NOT limited to meaning immersion or submersion.

:clapping: I was about to post this myself!

I’ve gone straight to the Greeks. I’ve sat with Greek people who are scholars of both koine’ and Hellenic (classical) Greek, and they flat tell me that to limit the definition of “baptizo” to immersion or submersion is simply incorrect use of the Greek language. They don’t have an axe to grind with us regarding our translations of their language… they simply know their own language.

Whew! What a relief! My sources (not Catholic, just Greek) concur.