Baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter oudave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
TNT:
Please read POST 150.
Doctrines are not ideas. The child will have a kingdom, but not to the extent that a baptised infant will.
Does abortion lead to certainty of salvation for the infant?
The greater evil of abortion is not the natural death. But when we oppose it against the Godless world, that is their only standard by which we can argue. They do not accept the supernatural.
But Catholics know that abortion ruins the hope of the infant ever receiving the full absorption into the Beatific vision of God. Which is the greater consequence of that crime? The Natural or supernatural loss?

Please read POST 150. It should be clear. If not please post any further request for further clarity.

I believe what the Church has always taught. Therefore, It cannot be “my” belief, but only the received teaching of the True Church. The same teaching that my forefathers received for 2000 years.
Please read POST 150.
That post and the one to you was concerning anyone BEFORE the age of reason, primarily infants. So “anyone” does not apply here.That’s why I cut out the CCC statement on others.
  1. We are not born innocent in the supernaturasl order. That is the perennial teaching of the Catholic faith. We are born innocent only in the natural order. It is an error to co-mingle the two and then add sentimentality, then preach that as doctine.
  2. All God’s gifts are a mercy.
    All God’s punisment is a justice.
    Witness: Why were you born with your soul where you were and are in the Catholic Faith. Compare this to a child born in the back streets of Calcutta. Why were they born there and you born here, in the supernatural order, not the natural order. What chance does that child have of being a Catholic in the True Church compared to your’s and mine? Zero comes to mind. Why is that? Explain to me God’s Mercy in that real life situation, please.
    If one is not infused with the habitation of of Sanctify Grace, then they UNABLE to receive the supernatural full gift of the full absorption into the Beatific vision. See the German Shepherd analogy in post 150.
You may hope, but this is not a doctrine. A doctrine does not promote a “possibility” for all things are possible. God may do as He wishes, but our doctrines are based on revelation, never on wishful possibilities.
Post 150, I believe is closest to doctrine, and is both Merciful and Just from revelation which includes Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition teaches us what is in post 150.
God is BOTH perfectly Just and perfectly Merciful. We are not to ignore His Justice nor the Supernatural Order.
all of it must be considered in beliefs as proposed by the Church.

This has been the teaching of the Catholic Faith from the beginning. Anything opposed to it is not the Catholic Faith. In this case, lest we be lead into the error of Universalism.

I thank you sincerely for responding to my post, and greatly appreciate your questions.
But proposing that unbaptised infants go to Heaven in the fullest sense is not conducive to convincing a protestant that infant baptism is a vaild and required practice of the Church.
God Bless
ps I would be thankful if you address the questions in this post.
Click to expand...
Hi TNT, A great example of man trying to play God. :eek:
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Thanks Ted for being honest. There are alot of thing we really dont know.We like to make alot of assumptions.When it comes to spiritual matters we like to assume alot,dont we? God Bless
Click to expand...
What do you mean? I thought we were debating doctrinal matters?
 
Théodred:
What do you mean? I was addressing your assumption, not mine.

I thought we were debating doctrinal matters?
Click to expand...
Hi Ted, BUT you did say the simple answer is that you do not know , correct? :confused: God Bless
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Hi TNT, A great example of man trying to play God. :eek:
Click to expand...
When you cannot approach the argument effectively, throw spiritual stones. That’ll terrorize them!
I duplicate only what the RCC has taught from the beginning. They are not my teachings. I could never think this up.
BTW: Where’s the answers to my questions from dozens of posts ago?
I had hoped you were working on cogent replies. Now I find out you’ve just been scribbling trite euphemisms!
GET TO WORK!
Be worthy of your posts.
Glad to know you’re still kickkin and have time left to convert to a non-contradictory Faith.
 
40.png
TNT:
When you cannot approach the argument effectively, throw spiritual stones. That’ll terrorize them!
I duplicate only what the RCC has taught from the beginning. They are not my teachings. I cold never think this up.
BTW: Where’s the answers to my questions from dozens of posts ago?
I had hoped you were working on cogent replies. Now I find out you’ve just been scribbling trite euphemisms!
GET TO WORK!
Be worthy of your posts.
Click to expand...
Just what I need to have some tnt put under me. That will wake me up. 😃 Thanks, God Bless
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Hi Ted, BUT you did say the simple answer is that you do not know , correct? :confused: God Bless
Click to expand...
I edited my post, see above.

I’m still not sure what you mean, but your welcome.
 
40.png
TNT:
I duplicate only what the RCC has taught from the beginning. They are not my teachings. I could never think this up.
Click to expand...
TNT, I have only duplicated what the Catechism and the RCC has taught me. They are not my teachings either. I have presented to you quotes from the CCC but you seem to insist that somehow these are my interpretations and ideas. They are not. Is not the CCC a doctrine?

I have read your post 150 several times and am having trouble deciphering it. Like I said I am only trying to understand where you are coming from. I think I may be understanding a little more since you have presented a quote from the Baltimore Catechism. (Maybe we are having more of a which Catechism is the right Catechism discussion?)

The following are some passages from the CCC regarding Baptism. I have not written them. Do you have a problem with them?

It is the Catechism that is stating that God’s mercy will probably allow for the salvation of the unbaptized infant as evident in the bible passage that shows us Jesus’ great love of children. I also thought that this may help SPOKEN in his understanding by sharing the last part of this passage that states “All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” It is made clear that for the unbaptized infant is only a hope or possiblity that he/she is saved compared to the baptized infant who most certainly will.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,”[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

I wanted to point out this passage because we seem to be a little stuck on the “anyone” aspect. In this passage it is made clear that “…all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the imspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if you have not been baptized.”

1282 Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom.

1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation. 1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate’s head while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
 
40.png
cove:
TNT, I have only duplicated what the Catechism and the RCC has taught me. They are not my teachings either. I have presented to you quotes from the CCC but you seem to insist that somehow these are my interpretations and ideas. They are not. Is not the CCC a doctrine?
Click to expand...
In this case, no. A HOPE or wish for a possibility is not even close to a doctrine.
See my more recent posts on the same Subject in:
**Re: Do babies who are stillborn or are miscarried go to heaven or purgatory? **

Try these posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=393899#post393899

And especially :

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=394398#post394398

These are among “Catholics” only, so far. The whole tread is interesting.

God Bless
 
40.png
oudave:
No, God doesnt reject them. When you were 4 and broke your neighbors window did they arrest you for vandelism? No, because you were not of responsible age. Catholic always talk about baptism’s in the scriptures where there MIGHT NOT have been enough water, or that there MIGHT have been children in the house, the only problem is the scriptures dont say that. You must also remember that John came to Baptize a Baptism of repentence, pretty hard for a 8 day old to repent.PLEASE Read
Mat 3:11-17.
In Him, Dave. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif
Click to expand...
So when does original sin manifiest itself in humans?

Do we not require cleansing of original sin?

Phil
 
40.png
josiah:
So, I am saved by works. What about the thief on the cross who never had the opportunity to be baptized?

Jn 3:5 is a reference to two seperate births. I don’t know how you can derive baptism out of this passage. The very next verse (verse 6) indicates the distinction.

Joh 3:5-6 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Josiah
Click to expand...
Baptism is being born of the spirit - what am I missing? Are you thinking that Jesus meant “born of water” in the physical sense of the birthing process? I’ve never heard that term before to refer to birth - have you - in the bible even? Born of blood is a biblical term refering to birth. And besides, why would Jesus say “unless a man is born of water” with the intention of referring to birth - that would be like saying “unless you are a man who has been born” which is obvious - all men have been born. It’s redundant. In addition, soon after this verse, John goes on to say how they were baptizing nearby. Lastly, when you look at John 3-5 and compare it to Titus 3:5 they seem very similar: …He saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit." It would seem “born of the Spirit” from John and “renewal by the holy Spirit” from Titus are one and the same. Does it not seem likely that “born of water” and “bath or rebirth” are, therefore, also the same?

Phil
 
40.png
TNT:
In this case, no. A HOPE or wish for a possibility is not even close to a doctrine.
See my more recent posts on the same Subject in:
**Re: Do babies who are stillborn or are miscarried go to heaven or purgatory? **

Try these posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=393899#post393899

And especially :

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=394398#post394398

These are among “Catholics” only, so far. The whole tread is interesting.

God Bless
Click to expand...
TNT, thank you but I am happy with the quote from the CCC which states that–

1261–…“Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,”[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.”

1281…“those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized”.

For me this is “doctrinal truth”. It is in the CCC. The Church states that we are allowed to “hope” for this. It is plain and straight forward. There is no missunderstanding these two passages.

This is what the Catechism of our Church teaches. If I am to be a good Catholic then I should believe what the Catechism teaches. Not what a poster at an internet discussion board has decided is doctrinal and what is not. You say “in this case No”. How do you have the authority to say what is doctrinal and what is not in the CCC?
 
I’ve pondered the subject of the death of children before the age of reason quite extensively. **Although my theory might be most unpopular I tend adhere to it.

**When a child comes into this world (at conception), it has not any reason to make a willful decision to sin, or come to knowledge of saving faith.

**However, it has imputed sin from Adam (original sin). We are all born spiritually dead toward God. Jesus affirms this in John 3," ye must be born again to see the kingdom of God". ****
**God knows the future decisions of any child if it were allowed to live a complete life. Just as he says he knew you before the foundations of the world.
**To reinforce my position on this I also bring in to question why God instructed Joshua and others to kill every man, woman, child, and beast in the cities of the gentiles. Why not save the infant, and pregnant mother? ****

**As unpleasant as it may seem without trying to be callous I don’t believe these chidren will see the kingdom of God. They will unthinkably be cast into the judgment of the lake of fire. I hope that I am wrong! However, I still stand firm that a person can be judged for things he might have done if allowed to live a full life. Our only assurance is that God will be perfectly just. **In the same way that we as believers are not guilty for our future sins because of imputed righteousness. Unbelievers are, guilty of theirs due to their positional unrighteousness. Therefore, God was just in exterminating the unborn and those who lack reason. This may seem unjust to us but God is never unjust. God knew that these people would have led Israel astray or impacted them in some negative way, because of their behavior in the future. Hence, he was judging them for their future behavior. My point exactly. Just as Ananias and Sapphira were judged and killed by God for lying to the Holy Spirit, which would have damaged the churches integrity in the future. Joshua killed the gentiles because they would have damaged the integrity of Israel in its infancy.

**
 
exrc said:
Therefore, God was just in exterminating the unborn and those who lack reason. This may seem unjust to us but God is never unjust. God knew that these people would have led Israel astray or impacted them in some negative way, because of their behavior in the future.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that unbaptized babies who die would have led Christians astray if God had allowed them to live and be baptized, and as a result of not reaching the age of reason, they go to hell?
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
His word also said that not every thing about Jesus was put into scripture. And no I do not think it would be neccesary for God to have an account of Mary assumed into heaven.It has been handed down orally,it is clear in scripture that you adhere to oral Tradition as well.On a side note,why would Mary being assumed into heaven bother you?I mean seriously,she gave birth to the second person of the Holy Trinity. Don’t you think on a practicle level that Jesus would take that into account?God Bless
Click to expand...
Where is it written in scripture that everything about Jesus was not put into scripture? Is there a verse that sayes read the sequel ?

I think that if Mary would have been assumed, God would have let know. It wouldn’t bother me if Mary had been assumed to Heaven,
it’s just that scripture doesn’t say it, once again follow the written word of God and oral tradition that has been handed down by God. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
oudave,

I do believe what the scriptures say. I just don’t believe what you say the Scriptures say. I instead agree with that Protestant scholar on the word “baptism.” He’s got a Doctorate of Divinity, do you? He says that you are incorrect. Unless you think you are infallible, your gonna have to be more convincing than thrusting your commentary at us as if IT were the Word of God.

Did you know that Jews baptize infants, as they did prior to the advent of Christianity? Christian baptism in the first century, like Jewish baptism, baptized entire households. I believe Scritpure and not your non-Scriptural assertion that some mythical age of reason must be attained prior to one validly receiving baptism. It’s not in Scripture, its just a product of ‘your’ tradition … a tradition of men. :eek:
Click to expand...
Show me in scripture where anyone Baptized children. and don’t assume anything because when we assume, it makes a a a a, well you know what I mean.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
40.png
oudave:
Where is it written in scripture that everything about Jesus was not put into scripture?
Click to expand...
You really don’t know the bible very well, do you?

Jn 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book.

Least you think this applies only to John’s Gospel…

Jn 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Why do I, a Catholic, have to constantly ask Bible Christians to go back and study their bibles?
 
Dear Oudave:
I think that if Mary would have been assumed, God would have let know.
Click to expand...
God did let us know. That’s why His Holy Catholic Church teaches it!

Go in peace.
Fiat
 
Théodred:
You really don’t know the bible very well, do you?

Jn 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book.

Least you think this applies only to John’s Gospel…

Jn 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Why do I, a Catholic, have to constantly ask Bible Christians to go back and study their bibles?
Click to expand...
Hey Theodred
Thanks for pointing those two scriptures out, I had not come across them as of yet. I don’t claim to know everything in the Bible
but I am involved in many study’s and enjoy hearing the word any chance I get. if you piont out any scriptures where children were
Baptized that would be helpful.
Davehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top