N
NotWorthy
Guest
With all due consideration to one of the posters on this thread, what you are talking about is like herding cats!
- Status
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I don’t believe I’ve had the pleasure
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
One step at a time.
But it’s all based in responding to the call from the Father and acting in obedience to His Word.
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
What planet are you from? I’m from Earth. Do you speak our language? If not, I can find an interpreter for you. I speak fundamentalism and Catholicism. I’m learning Orthodox now.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I meant, trying to argue with a typical Church of Christ person is like herding cats. (If you notice, one of the posters on this thread is “Cat Herder”). It’s rather difficult because, as you mentioned, the playing field keeps changing. I sometimes think they make it up as they go along.
Is that earthling enough for you.
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
Sorry about that. I was hoping I missed something. But now that you got me thinking straight, I see the humor - particularly because we have 3 cats and herding 's not an option.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Sorry about that. I was hoping I missed something. But now that you got me thinking straight, I see the humor - particularly because we have 3 cats and herding 's not an option.
S
stevekehl
Guest
Is that why you keep your gun handy.
Yes, one of the problems with some COC congregations is that they feel they are the ony Christians
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
Wow! You mean you’re not one of us… I mean them. That always disturbed me. But I dared not argue. I was already dubbed the ignorant Catholic behind my back, even though I could quote scripture left and right and had most of the same beliefs. My brother-in-law, up in the Panhandle, even tried to appease my mother-in-law by informing her that we have almost the same exact believes with exception from where we draw authority. I found that comforting for our family situation. However, it still does not stop her from proselytizing me her own unique way now when we visit.Is that why you keep your gun handy.
Congratulations for not being like that. God has blessed you my friend. You really should go play around with Stephanie Lochet’s website. I give her much credit for my conversion simply because I learned incorrectly growing up because no on else in my family was truly practicing their Catholic faith and those that were practice acted like nothing mattered - part of the 60’s and 70’s influence. There are several converts on the site I showed you. And many of them can and will share with you what they’ve learned and where to go for the information. No pompous idiots over there… well, except me. They can explain all sorts of questions you have should you truly be interested. Most of them are from the more strict or “conservative” lines. But my wife and I are from what we call “mainstream.”
Do you know who Bruce Sullivan is by any chance?
N
NorthTexan88
Guest
I agree with both of these ha. Ive been told I was going to Hell for going to a Baptist church. I was trying to explain me becomin Catholic with my family and other members of my former church and its like talking to a brick wall. I said look at church history and they told me the devil was making me believe all this. Then they went on to tell me that I was going to spend an eternity in Hell for becoming Catholic…Well if i believe in Jesus and that doesnt get you into Heaven im not exactly sure whats helping them get there hahIs that why you keep your gun handy.
S
stevekehl
Guest
Thanks for the props. It is discouraging arguing with people more concerned with being right than living like we are all part of Christ’s bride. Is there a web address for Stephanie Lochet? I found a bunch of facebook accounts. Also never heard of Bruce Sullivan.
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
This is a website her husband created and maintains for her. The next one is her blog.
coctocatholic.com/index.php
laviecatholique.blogspot.com
The following is an interview with a friend of mine, Bruce Sullivan, on the Journey Home. Bruce wrote a book and tells more about his journey to becoming Catholic. He, like me, was a preacher.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ev40dzl-35o
S
stevekehl
Guest
Thanks
Y
Yingchun
Guest
the Authority of Church, the issue of Infant Baptism is null; which one of us would wait till our children are old enough to decide if he/she wants to go to college before securing elementary, middle, and high school education for them? Conversely, why are pro-gun and pro-anything else except Christianity parents in such a rush to get their toddlers into the “best” schools or the use of the latest techs or “sex education” or the ability to hunt/kill game or the use of a gun or the craze of infant everything (swimming, reading, painting, modeling)… yet, when it comes to becoming part of the Body human widom, in some cases, dictate “less is more” or “let’s wait an see” or “Yahweh God would not “X”?”
coach outlet|Coach Bracelets|Office 2007|office 2010
coach outlet|Coach Bracelets|Office 2007|office 2010
R
rdscheirer
Guest
The Book of Acts says that Peter baptised HOUSEHOLDS. Therfore He must have baptised infants!
S
stevekehl
Guest
Acts does record that Peter baptised Cornelius and his household, those who spoke in tongues.
Acts 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Notice it records the Spirit fell on those who heard the word, infants can’t understand what we are saying. Now it is possible for very young children to understand the Gospel, a friend of mine recently baptized his 6-year-old son. In addition, those who received the Spirit began talking in tongues and babies can’t speak. Just to clarify, talking in tongues is not insensible babbling, it is talking in a language unknown to the speaker. I have never heard of an infant speaking in tongues. If an early church infant had spoken in tongues I think it would have to have been recorded as a miracle, no less amazing than a healed leper or restored paralytic.
Acts also records Paul preaching to and baptising households, as in chapter 16 with Lydia. However Paul went on to write verses like these.
Romans 10:17 No one can have faith without hearing the message about Christ.
Galatians 3:2 I want to know only one thing. How were you given God’s Spirit? Was it by obeying the Law of Moses or by hearing about Christ and having faith in him?
Just to show that I’m not anti-Catholic, here is a selection from the Didache.
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism.
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
Notice the command for the baptized to fast a day or two before baptism, clearly not intended for infants. Also note that water poured on the head is a last resort, which makes me think early church baptisms were by immersion.
There are many more passage of Scripture that lead me to believe that conversion and baptism must be made by informed, older children. I’ve posted them many times on CAF so if you would like to hear my rationale feel free to pm me.
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
I struggled with this same issue for a while. It’s the reason I ended up converting to the Church of Christ. However, after growing up, study more deeply and getting a better feel for translations, traditions, history and scripture, I came to understand that it was the Protestant Reformation that led to these rejections of those ideas.
Fasting. Yes. But notice it does not mention everything that must be done, example: an infant that would be baptized would have parents and the parents would fast for them. Also, if someone was ill or older, they would most likely not have forced them to fast as well. But what’s really interesting is that you are a Christian in the Church of Christ and from my 18 years experience as an adult in the Church of Christ, they do not teach people to fast at all. In fact, they don’t teach anyone to do penance. That would imply that there is something to this thing we call Catholicism. I appreciate you research, but the truth of the matter lies in that one must emerge themself not only in scripture to come to an understanding of historical truth.
One thing that I’ve never heard people discuss is the fact that many adults put off baptism in an attempt to wait to the last minute to be washed from their sins. Confession was much more strict back then. The frequency of confession was not as prevalent as we see in today’s Church, both East and West. It takes a lot of prayerful study to reach the conclusion that your position bears no fruit. Likewise, you would say the same is true for my position. But, the problem is that my position is actually supported by actual historical facts, not conjecture.
After taking numerous revisits to Matthew 19:14, "Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these,” I came to realize that Jesus was saying not to keep children from God, in all things…including baptism. There is no evidence that children were not baptized. But there is evidence that they were.
M
Michael19682
Guest
If I understand this thread and its posts correctly,
The verse of Hebrews speaks about minds and hearts, also. Jesus said, “From the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.” Mt 12:34. Children, including infants, have hearts that can know the Lord. Continuing instruction is, in my opinion, aimed at getting them sophisticated enough to read the gospel, follow its more difficult passages, and make their mouth speak in accordance with a faith that is growing (already said in the catechism and other posts). To say, you shall not say to them “Know the Lord,” is reasonable in Hebrews 8, and thus reconcilable, since we are teaching his life (story) and his truth (meanings, words), not necessarily only how Jesus’ “way” will be found in a given person’s unique earthly destiny. Jesus says in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Just as with the trinity, the way, the truth, and the life have mysterious unity, but appear separable in human terms. Thus the Lord, who is the One imparting his Spirit, and who never ceases in such availability, 1 Thessalonians 5:17 (“Pray without ceasing”), obviously has more to reveal to us as we grow older and encounter new life circumstances and must find out how to unite our way with his way as closely as possible.
Finally, if this person respects logic and Saint Augustine then you can point out from the Confessions that babies and infants sin when they demand things without proper respect and patience (such as their mother’s milk) (That was his particular confession, of course). At any rate, if a person can sin as a baby, then baptism is needed. In fact, as long as sin continues, instruction, including self instruction, must continue. At least until confirmation, a person needs to know how to learn things. The heart might know God, but the information enters through the mind and is involved in a process with one’s own speech, which, the letter of James points out, is clearly a potentially wicked human capability that can mute and distort the hearts own evangelical demands!
This CoC teacher is actually encouraging me that the walk-about, Bible-toting evangelists are learning. Do they still ask “Do you know Jesus?” They should not, according to this passage Hebrews 8. Knowledge is in the heart, first and foremost. But ability to express it was in ancient and modern terms mediated by mind and “mouth”.
N
Nate13
Guest
Isn’t the best proof that we are to baptize infants somewhat based in the fact that baptism is the new circumcision? In the Old Testament you circumcised your infants to show that they were part of the covenant with God. If God included them in the covenant back then why not also in the New Covenant? I think we could all agree that Baptism signifies entrance into the New Covenant with God?
M
Michael19682
Guest
Yes. Thank you and point well taken as very direct.
Also,
Strangely, these many CoC types argue vehemently that infant baptisms “don’t count.” They ignore Ephesians 4:5. “One lord, one faith, one baptism.” and try to use the “doesn’t count” accusation to invite conversion to their own church. I commiserate with anyone trying to debate with such an argument.
Why some people think infants can’t be baptized is a problem for which I have never heard a satisfactory scriptural answer. Has anyone?
- Status