Baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter oudave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
jeffreedy789:
hm. so - was that last post an answer to ‘why do people keep hijacking baptism threads?’?

i wonder, because you seem to be using scripture to back up a position i wasn’t challenging. so… like half your post seems to be defending something that’s not being attacked.

i’m just trying to understand your post, and ergo, the entire thread. thanks.
Click to expand...
I gave the reason for their obsession on baptism, and at the same time the bible that they profess and deny at the same time on Baptism.

You might say I have an obsession about their obsession.
 
40.png
TNT:
I gave the reason for their obsession on baptism, and at the same time the bible that they profess and deny at the same time on Baptism.

You might say I have an obsession about their obsession.
Click to expand...
They also,say they are the only ones going to heaven,so most of the sermons I heard growing up was how everybody else was going to hell,they are obsessed with babtism as well as being the only ones going to heaven.They do not allow musical instruments in church services that could send you to hell:rolleyes: They said it wasn’t mentioned in the New Testament except in Heavenly worship.I have often wanted to sarcastically point out that air conditioners were not mentioned either,but I thought it might be uncharitable:D God Bless
 
cars, either.

i was church of christ before i became baptist before i became catholic. heh heh…

i was nondenom before church of christ. (this was when i was a kid)

i’m glad i’ve finally settled on a church i really believe in. 😉
 
40.png
jeffreedy789:
cars, either.

i was church of christ before i became baptist before i became catholic. heh heh…

i was nondenom before church of christ. (this was when i was a kid)

i’m glad i’ve finally settled on a church i really believe in. 😉
Click to expand...
Good for you,I know what you went through there I pray that the current members run into the nearest Catholic Church and start RCIA immediately:) God Bless
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Good for you,I know what you went through there I pray that the current members run into the nearest Catholic Church and start RCIA immediately:) God Bless
Click to expand...
Giga Dittos from me too.
I have nieces and nephews in COC, so I’m real sensitive about them. They’re just now learning to converse with people who are going to hell. But I love them so specially. I don’t know why.
Even more than my Mormon nieces.
 
40.png
TNT:
Giga Dittos from me too.
I have nieces and nephews in COC, so I’m real sensitive about them. They’re just now learning to converse with people who are going to hell. But I love them so specially. I don’t know why.
Even more than my Mormon nieces.
Click to expand...
You probably can sense that they are traumatised.I would cry myself to sleep as a young child because of the fear instilled by that Church.God was truly portrayed as angry,unjust and waiting behind every bush for you to mess up.You need to be there for them,when they get to be teens they might rebel against what they think God is and get into trouble,I did.God Bless
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
They also,say they are the only ones going to heaven,so most of the sermons I heard growing up was how everybody else was going to hell,…
Click to expand...
I confess that I taught them “no salvation outside the Church”. Then like the Bible, they applied it to the wrong “church”. My regret. Mea Culpa a 1000 times.
they are obsessed with babtism as well as being the only ones going to heaven.They do not allow musical instruments in church services that could send you to hell:rolleyes: They said it wasn’t mentioned in the New Testament except in Heavenly worship.I have often wanted to sarcastically point out that air conditioners were not mentioned either,but I thought it might be uncharitable:D God Bless
Click to expand...
Nor pews, nor tuning forks, nor stages, nor microphones, nor electric lights, (candles are the only biblical man made light.)
Heaven forbid if we should imitate heavenly worship.
ps. I LOVE Memphis. It’s the only city I got lost in and didn’t care.
 
How about if we (COC) familiars start a COC Apostolate thread? I think James Akins was a COC.

We could call it the
Catholics for COC
We could start by telling them WHO all those churches of Christ were saluting. Rom 16:16. …And still are.😉
 
40.png
TNT:
I confess that I taught them “no salvation outside the Church”. Then like the Bible, they applied it to the wrong “church”. My regret. Mea Culpa a 1000 times.
Nor pews, nor tuning forks, nor stages, nor microphones, nor electric lights, (candles are the only biblical man made light.)
Heaven forbid if we should imitate heavenly worship.
ps. I LOVE Memphis. It’s the only city I got lost in and didn’t care.
Click to expand...
You make sure you share the ignorance clause:) But I can not say enough to be there for them,I wasn’t the only kid there that got into serious spiritual trouble and didn’t even care about the commandments,because we just felt like we could never get to heaven anyway and if God doesn’t care if people that didn’t know any better but tried to love him with what they had been given,it paints a very dark picture of God.God Bless
 
40.png
TNT:
So, the answer I see is: NO you cannot be saved if you are not capable of understanding. Therefore the retarded are never saved, nor are those below the age of reason.
This is your belief? Did I get it right?
Click to expand...
For simplicity. I think your core question is “can mentally retarded people be saved?”

Scripture is very quiet when it comes to the less fortunate, who lack the normal mental capabilities and their salvation. However, if you believe that God is a righteous, loving judge then I trust he will handle these unfortunate souls with fairness.

As one who holds to sola scriptura, I can’t say anything else about this b/c scripture isn’t explicit about retarded people. The same holds true about infants who die at infancy.

Now for individuals like you and me, who have been blessed with a healthy mind, we can’t be saved without the epistemological basis for salvation.

I hope this is clear.

Josiah
 
40.png
TNT:
Matthew 19:14 Mark 10:14

but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.”
Click to expand...
Oh please. This is major proof texting.
First, there is no context of baptism in this passage.
Second, the children came to Him (Jesus) out of their own volition. Unlike in infant baptism when an infant is brought to the baptism through their parents Will, not theirs.
40.png
TNT:
Acts2:38-39.
Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you** in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, for your children,** and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him."
Click to expand...
Peter said. Repent first then be baptized. This is no different than your doctor saying “Take 2 advil and go to sleep.” Repenting precedes the baptism. Something an infant is incapable.
 
Church Militant:
Neither of you guys have bothered to answer my post which is # 4 above.

I note that you have lots of “Bible only” rhetoric and lots of attack dog vehemence but very little charity or consideration. Plus you have no reference to just plain old God-given common sense, so that you can make you cases for what YOU think the passages in question mean as opposed to what the whole of Christianity believed and practiced up until 487 years ago. you’re the guys with all the NEW doctrines that you should be defending, not us who have held to the same NT Christianity of the early church. you have NO historic leg to stand on with your arguments and why would we care, since you two are just two more of a huge mob of confused people and if we were to line 'em all up and ask them to tell us about baptism, we’d be buried in all the divergent views and they’d straight way forget about us and begin to argue among themselves.

You may think that we know nothing about the Bible, but we know enough to tell that confusion and discord is the work of the devil and lack of charity is not a sign of Christ’s presence.

To put it all in good Protestant terms for ya. It all stems from the refusal to submit to the valid authority of those put over you in the church. You are in rebellion and out from under the “covering” of that authority that you tell others to submit to.

Now…can you and your buddy PLEASE calm down and take a look at post 4 and give me your best answer without all the attack dog bit?
Click to expand...
Josiah…You still have not attempted to answer either of my posts.
 
Second, the children came to Him (Jesus) out of their own volition.
Click to expand...
Errrrrrr… no.

Luke 18:15-16 (NASB) “And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”

Jesus rebuked them for not allowing the little children, even the infants (Gk “brephos”) to come to him.

*For of such is the kingdom of God *(even infants).

Yet, only those who are born again or born from above (Gr “anothen”), can see the kingdom of God. Thus, we pray sacramentally that even infants are born again in baptism, as Christian always have without question of validity until the novel doctrines of some Protestants in the middle ages.

It is nothing more than mere Protestant tradition which asserts that this is wrong. They assert we are not permitted to sacramentally pray that infants are born again in baptism. A strange conclusion for those professing to be “Bible only” Christians, as there is no passage in Scripture that prohibits sacramental baptism of infants.

By this assertion they forbid the little children and infants (Gr ‘brephos’) to come to Jesus.
 
Repenting precedes the baptism.
Click to expand...
Jesus was baptized. Did he need to repent? It seems Sacred Scripture trumps your assertion. Scritpure teaches that only those *needing *to repent must repent before baptism.

Peter says: "For the promise is for you, for your children"

Peter does not say: “For the promise is for you, and for you childen when they are old enough to choose Christ for themselves.”

Nowhere in Scripture does there appear a passage that shows a child being refused baptism until they are old enough to “choose Jesus for themselves as their personal Lord and Savior.”

In fact, Christian baptism is a transformed and perfected sign which derives from the Jewish custom of baptism. The practice of baptizing entire housholds of gentile converts was Jewish custom prior to the advent of Christianity. Each member, including infants, were baptized, then the males, including infants were circumcised. Even today, Jews continue to baptize infants. Yet, we are expected to believe that Jews who became Christian began to baptize entire households but excluded infants?? Yet there’s no evidence of this claim in either history or Scripture. :rolleyes:
 
Church Militant:
Oudave,
You are in error since you overlook such cases as the Philippian jailer who was baptised along with his whole household in the middle of the night after washing Paul’s wounds.

This implies that they were baptised with water that was present, since it nowhere states that they “went down to the river” in the middle of the night. And just exactly what did they do, there in that hot dusty middle eastern climate since pools and rivers weren’t everywhere and the Baptists hadn’t yet come along to invent their immersion tanks yet?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi C.M. Of course I,m disagreeing with you.The word household does not mean that there are infants included,just an assumption on your part. :confused: God Bless.
Click to expand...
 
SPOKENWORD said:
--------------------------------------------Hi C.M. Of course I,m disagreeing with you.The word household does not mean that there are infants included,just an assumption on your part. :confused: God Bless.
Click to expand...

Then prove me wrong…You cannot ASSUME (and you do…don’t you!?) that we are wrong. I would venture that my own position is the more logical and likely. Passages of scripture do not specify that there were teenagers in the households, or slaves or gentiles, or even negroes, yet we can pretty well rest assured that those groups were represented. It doesn’t say that old people were included also, but again…BTW, ever see a family from and old farm community? They ALWAYS seem to have infants…for all the obvious reasons.Why would this instance be any different?

Of course we disagree SPOKENWORD, it’s our favorite pastime aside from prayer and worship. Sweet Tea anyone? http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1...y.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/coffeecupsmily.gif
 
SPOKENWORD,
The word household does not mean that there are infants included,just an assumption on your part
Click to expand...
Given that Jewish custom prior to the advent of Christianity was to baptize entire households, including infants, as they still do today, why do you assume otherwise? We are both making assumptions, it seems. Yet our assumption is based upon the evidence of history. Why have you made your assumption? Doesn’t your assumption sound unreasonable, given that both pre-Christian Judaism and ancient Christianity baptized infants without any dispute over validity?

Can you tell us, historically speaking, when the first dispute over the validity of infant baptism began?
 
Church Militant said:
]
Of course we disagree SPOKENWORD, it’s our favorite pastime aside from prayer and worship. Sweet Tea anyone?
Click to expand...

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1...y.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/coffeecupsmily.gif Hi C.M. Now as far as our favorite pastime I DO AGREE. 😃 God never goes against our free will. God is bound by His promises. Why would God go against them? Infants do not have a free will. Now that doesnt mean babys are condemmed.They are under the wings of our loving God. :confused: God Bless
 
40.png
josiah:
Oh please. This is major proof texting.
First, there is no context of baptism in this passage.

Second, the children came to Him (Jesus) out of their own volition. Unlike in infant baptism when an infant is brought to the baptism through their parents Will, not theirs…
Click to expand...
Hall of Shame on you Josiah!

Matthew 21:16 And said to him: Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus said to them: Yea, have you never read: Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also** infants,** that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them.
Josiah, the Baptism of households which we “make the assumption” includes infants is just as well supported by the VERY SAME historical tradition in the Early Church that you have already applied toward accepting Hebrews and Philemon in anothe thread.
An assumtion becomes fact when we see the assumption fulfilled in the earliest Church instructions.
Now, where is your proof in early church practice that your “assumption of NO infants” is proven as a fact?
You cannot rule out tradition beause that has been your MAJOR tangible argument for Hebrews and Philemon in another thread, other than a personal gnostic revelation (which flies no better than a fairy in the real world.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top