Catholic vs. Christian

  • Thread starter Thread starter rosypink
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
saved75,
I see you have strong feelings about infant baptism. I do respect the view it is meant for adults, however i think you should open a new thread about it. I would be interested to join the conversation.
Thats just my opinion. Im not a moderator, and if the OP is interested…by all means let him here it.
 
rosypink said:
I need advice! I’m going to baptize my friends two boys. She is Christian and her husband is Catholic. They want to raise their kids with both religions; going to Christian church one day and Catholic Church another and want to let their children decide what path to take when they grow up. My family for generations are strong Catholic believers so in my mothers eyes that was wrong and I heard it from a few friends as well. Essentially both religions have the same God but they don’t have the same beliefs so it makes it tough for me to accept their decision. Is it hypocritical for me to baptize these boys knowing that their parents are not going to commit to teaching them to be Catholic 100% but both? Is it wrong to mix both religions and to let your children decide what religion they want to take when the grow up? By the way the boys are 2 and 3.

In my opinion I think this will only confuse them when they get older; they should be one or the other not both. & if both then why baptize?

This has caused a huge argument in my family and I will greatly appreciate all the responses I get! 🙂 Thank you and God bless!
Click to expand...
I am probably repeating what other posters have already said…

OK First of all it is wrong to make the distinction between “Christian” and “Catholic.” Catholics are Christians, in fact they are the first Christians. I assume you mean to distinguish between Catholic and Protestant. That being said,

You should absolutely not baptize these children. Why would they be asking you to do that anyway? It is not appropriate for a Catholic lay person to baptize someone who is not even properly practicing the faith. Which leads me to my next point…

You are right then to question whether it is right to raise the children this way. Not only is it wrong, it is bad for the children. The first reason it is wrong is that the Catholic parents are obligated to do their best to raise the children Catholic. Secondly it’s wrong because as Catholics it is never an option to “go to mass one Sunday, and the other church the next.” Sunday mass is an obligation for all Catholics. Third of all it is bad for the kids, like I said before, because it will create confusion for them. When parents try to raise kids in a “mixed faith” household they usually end up just giving up on faith altogether. Even if the kids do end up Catholic, chances are they are going to be very poorly catechized and will not stay in the Church for very long.
 
saved75 said:
Water baptism doesn’t save, The disciple were baptised, But they weren’t saved.
Paul sais it was through his Ministry that the Corithians were born again[Saved], But he said he didn’t baptise them. So Paul agrees with the Bible and the original Greek Bible texts, That water baptism doesn’t save.
Click to expand...
1 Peter 3:19-22
After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
 
saved75 said:
Jesus never said we must be baptised in water to be saved.
He said, “Unless you are born of the water and the Spirit”
The “Water” isn’t refering to water baptism, False religious people made that lie up.
The water is refering to the wrod, Jn 15: 3. Eph 5: 26. James 1: 18. 1Pet 1: 22–23.
Click to expand...
False religion denies what Jesus himself taught us and passed down to us through his apostles. Evangelical Christianity is that false religion.
 
saved75 said:
If by baptise, You mean infant baptism, Then there is no such Biblical thing at it.
The Bible’s way is,
[1]Here and understand the gospel.
[2]Believe and recieve it.
[3]Repent and get born again…Then and then only can one be baptsied.
Plus every Greek meaning for baptism, Is by total immersion.
Click to expand...
What is interesting is that Christ seems to get this order you’ve presented different. In the great commission, He says:

1). **Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, **
Here He instructs us what to do.

Following He tells us how to do this:
  1. **baptizing them inb the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, **
    He tells us to start by Baptizing.

    Then…
    3.** teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”**
    Teaching them, IOW, preach to them the Gospel.
Now, in Christ’s own words, Baptism comes first, but that doesn’t mean Baptism can’t come later. It often does. What I don’t see is a need to scripture against itself. They historic Church has always Baptized infants, bringing children to the Holy Spirit, as He said, “suffer the little children to come to me, and forbid them not.”

Jon
 
If you want them to attend both churches, it should be in the catholic church because if they are going to attend the Mass they should work and learn about the sacraments in order to receive holy communion. However when they attend another church their will be big differences
 
JustaServant said:
Here’s another illustration that can help our evangelical friends:
Reading thru a magazine once I came upon an interesting collection of photos. The first picture is of a tiny infant wearing a pair of oversized adult bluejeans. One could hardly see the baby. The next photos showed every year for the next fifteen years. At the age of fifteen the child has grown into his bluejeans.
That’s Baptism.
You grow into who you are.
Baptism is not my announcment that I have enough faith to recieve it.
It is finally recieving by faith what was freely given to me in Baptism.
Is Baptism a symbolic witness or God’s seal upon the believer?
Is it my commitment or God’s committment?
In the Old Testament, circumcision was the mark on one’s body that gave testimony to the Covenant God has made.
The sign IN the body represents a change in the heart.
Baptism is the ‘brand’ or the ‘seal’. Salvation is conveyed to us by the operation of the Spirit through Baptism.
It is God’s declaration, not ours.
A helpless infant is the recipiant of God’s Grace.
A Grace that awaits our response.
Click to expand...
👍 Yes! :clapping:
 
JerryZ said:
👍 Yes! :clapping:
Click to expand...
Thanks.
I have to cut and paste old posts for yet another fundamentalist…and they never read them anyway, they just regurgitate the propaganda they were indoctrinated in.
But maybe the lurkers can get something out of them.

JonNC.
Excellent post.
 
saved75 said:
The Greek emphesis for “Remission” in Acts 2: 38, Is on the “REPENTING”, not baptism.
The Greek emphesis for, Saved, in Mk 16: 16, Is on the, “BELIEVING”, Not baptism.
And the Children in v39 isn’t infants.
Click to expand...
Documentation please.
 
rosypink said:
I need advice! I’m going to baptize my friends two boys. She is Christian and her husband is Catholic. They want to raise their kids with both religions; going to Christian church one day and Catholic Church another and want to let their children decide what path to take when they grow up. My family for generations are strong Catholic believers so in my mothers eyes that was wrong and I heard it from a few friends as well. Essentially both religions have the same God but they don’t have the same beliefs so it makes it tough for me to accept their decision. Is it hypocritical for me to baptize these boys knowing that their parents are not going to commit to teaching them to be Catholic 100% but both? Is it wrong to mix both religions and to let your children decide what religion they want to take when the grow up? By the way the boys are 2 and 3.

In my opinion I think this will only confuse them when they get older; they should be one or the other not both. & if both then why baptize?

This has caused a huge argument in my family and I will greatly appreciate all the responses I get! 🙂 Thank you and God bless!
Click to expand...
Where did you get the notion Catholics are not Christians?
 
saved75 said:
If by baptise, You mean infant baptism, Then there is no such Biblical thing at it.
The Bible’s way is,
[1]Here and understand the gospel.
[2]Believe and recieve it.
[3]Repent and get born again…Then and then only can one be baptsied.
Plus every Greek meaning for baptism, Is by total immersion.
Click to expand...
First don’t de rail the thread with your ridiculous claims

Two, Catholics can be baptized by immersion, but accept other ways. How would someone in the middle of the desert 2000 years ago be baptized by immersion. Fact is water was not as available as it is today. A lack of a pool does not prohibit baptism.

Read the didache.
 
rosypink said:
I need advice! I’m going to baptize my friends two boys. She is Christian and her husband is Catholic. They want to raise their kids with both religions; going to Christian church one day and Catholic Church another and want to let their children decide what path to take when they grow up. My family for generations are strong Catholic believers so in my mothers eyes that was wrong and I heard it from a few friends as well. Essentially both religions have the same God but they don’t have the same beliefs so it makes it tough for me to accept their decision. Is it hypocritical for me to baptize these boys knowing that their parents are not going to commit to teaching them to be Catholic 100% but both? Is it wrong to mix both religions and to let your children decide what religion they want to take when the grow up? By the way the boys are 2 and 3.

In my opinion I think this will only confuse them when they get older; they should be one or the other not both. & if both then why baptize?

This has caused a huge argument in my family and I will greatly appreciate all the responses I get! 🙂 Thank you and God bless!
Click to expand...
It is not a licit baptism if performed by the laity unless immediate danger of death. As such your concern should be more why you are planning on performing an illicit baptism against the teachings of the church.
 
Jon_S said:
First don’t de rail the thread with your ridiculous claims

Two, Catholics can be baptized by immersion, but accept other ways. How would someone in the middle of the desert 2000 years ago be baptized by immersion. Fact is water was not as available as it is today. A lack of a pool does not prohibit baptism.

Read the didache.
Click to expand...
Emersion is becoming more widely practiced among Catholics. Some cathedrals have small pools that even adults can be baptized by emersion. But there is consensus among nearly all Christians that being baptized by sprinkling is just as valid as emersion though Christ was likely emersed by St John the Baptist.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Emersion is becoming more widely practiced among Catholics. Some cathedrals have small pools that even adults can be baptized by emersion. But there is consensus among nearly all Christians that being baptized by sprinkling is just as valid as emersion though Christ was likely emersed by St John the Baptist.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, only fundamentalists want to argue over sprinkling and emersion.
Which is weird because, if Baptism has no saving power anyway, why argue about it at all?
 
JustaServant said:
As far as I know, only fundamentalists want to argue over sprinkling and emersion.
Which is weird because, if Baptism has no saving power anyway, why argue about it at all?
Click to expand...
Such a good point! They are often just fine with someone never being baptized, yet jump down your throat if you dare baptize a child or sprinkle rather than immerse. 🤷
 
saved75 said:
The “Children” In Acts 2: 39, Means those of an age of understanding, The Greek word is,
“Teknos”", [Which DOESN’T include infants].
If Acts 2: 39 mean infants, The Greek word would be, “Brethos”.

So Acts 2: 39 DOESN’T support infant baptism.
Besides comon sense tells us,
“How can an infant repent,chose Jesus and get born again”.
Click to expand...
Baptism re establishes the Covenant that God had with man before original sin, it wipes that away and brings us back into the new Covenant with the Father through Jesus Christ. Why would you NOT want that for your child? Why is it wrong? This has been done for many centuries before the Anabaptists and others came and denounced the act of infant baptism.
 
If baptism is no big thing, then why was Jesus baptized?

It’s not like Jesus went around going after false sacraments, or creating them. 🤷
 
saved75 said:
Jesus never said we must be baptised in water to be saved.
He said, “Unless you are born of the water and the Spirit”
The “Water” isn’t refering to water baptism, False religious people made that lie up.
The water is refering to the wrod, Jn 15: 3. Eph 5: 26. James 1: 18. 1Pet 1: 22–23.
Click to expand...
you are treading dangerous water yourself with your last statement. A lie? What is water referring to then? Coca cola, rose petals, vodka? I think water means…water? It is the water WITH the word done in the name of the Triune God combined that make baptism valid. I’m curious as to what denominational background you come from, because even most Protestants don’t hold to what you just said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top