Debating CoC preacher about Infant Baptism

[Sonny69]

Well, to be fair, you should first acknowledge that our tradition is also the source of your Bible, so…

I acknowledge God as the source of Scripture; not men. Jesus is called the “Word” for a specific reason.

I have read Mark 7 both many times before and just now, and it’s just as clear to me now as it was when I quoted Matthew: in both cases, Jesus accepts, and calls the Jews of His day to accept, the legitimate teachings and traditions of the scribes and Pharisees, and to reject those teachings where the Pharisees contradicted themselves. This is no different, today, from accepting the authoritative, infallible teachings of the Pope and the bishops, and rejecting any homilies or personal suggestions of priests or bishops that contract the constant teachings of the Catholic Church. This in no way affects the validity of infant baptism which, as we keep reminding you, is neither an innovation, nor a contradiction of the Scriptures (a significant portion of which the Catholic Church wrote), nor a contradiction of anything ever taught by the Magisterium throughout the near 2000-year history of the Church. So, again, I question the point of bringing it up; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread.

That is one of many opinions, but history outside of Catholicism states otherwise. When you argue from tradition and not from Scripture there is no longer a discussion since Scripture trumps traditions in my book, the Bible. i do agree that some traditions, which are in accord with Scripture are just fine and often helpful to the Christian.

 

[NotWorthy]

The quote supports exactly what I stated; they generalize by using the phrase “washing up”, which makes it sound like they had Delta faucets, which they did not…they immersed their hands into the water using pots or a river or stream or other source of “flowing” water.

Reminds me of the man Jesus healed at Solomon’s portico; the first into the water was healed when the waters were stirred.

No, if they used pots, then the dirt would gather in the pot and the next person washing would be using old water. Remember, the priest was “removing the filth of this world” from his hands, as he was supposed to do with this heart.

Hence, the water was poured out over his hands and onto the ground, or else the next person would be dealing with the same filth. How would you like to be the 12th person to wash from the same bowl?

And, as mentioned, the “baptizo” represented the pouring out of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts.

 

[NotWorthy]

So what you’re saying is that, so long as you can find some way, in your own mind, to twist the obvious statement that it’s not total immersion, which is what you demand for baptism, into some form of, “well, at least one atom of the human in question is totally immersed,” then you can successfully “refute” the constant teaching and practice of the Christian Church from before the Bible, which that Church wrote, even existed so that the new innovation of those who broke away from that original Church at least 500 years ago, if not more recently? Fair enough. You win. We’re definitely wrong to use the Bible that our Church wrote to support what our Church has always done simply because you, who are taking traditions from outside the Bible-Writing Church, tell us what the Bible “really” means. I guess I’ll be leaving the Catholic Church now in favor of this new wisdom… (Well, maybe not right now, since, first I should probably be responsible and mop up all this dripping sarcasm I’ve just spilled all over the floor. )

One could more accurately say your words are “immersed” in sarcasm instead of dripping, eh? :bounce:

 

[NotWorthy]

That is one of many opinions, but history outside of Catholicism states otherwise. When you argue from tradition and not from Scripture there is no longer a discussion since Scripture trumps traditions in my book, the Bible. i do agree that some traditions, which are in accord with Scripture are just fine and often helpful to the Christian.

I’m very interested in what you mean by “History outside of Catholicism states otherwise”. Since for 1500 years, the sole history of Christianity is synonymous with Catholicism, I don’t understand how you can say “History outside of Catholicism states otherwise” without that history outside of Catholicism being anything other than a tradition of man.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Notice "not as the removal of dirt (Peter goes out of his way to make sure the reader doesn’t make your mistake), which refers to water baptism, here is another example of baptism by the Holy Spirit and again not apart from faith in God. The water in that passage represents “judgment”.

Or is St. Peter, rather, going out of his way to keep us from making your mistake by telling us that Baptism should not be seen “as the removal of dirt” only (i.e. effective of nothing but symoblism), but rather as being efficatious “for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38)? Gee, I guess we each read the same text differently (although I’m remembering that Peter is the one who said that’s what Baptism did in the Acts passage, maybe you’ve forgotten that?). However shall we settle this debate?

Well, either we can use sola Scriptura to declare that, by my reading you’re in serious doctrinal error and therefore in danger of hell and that by your reading I am likewise in error and liable to hell, thus deciding that, rather than actually coming to any accord and living in unity as brothers in Christ, we should just start two seperate but equal denominations. Or… hmmm… maybe we could instead do like Jesus suggests in Matthew 18:17 and “tell it to the Church…”? Since the Church is “the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles” (Eph 2: 19-20) - sounds like the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” to me - I guess that means you should simply listen to the Catholic teaching on baptism rather than decide the meaning of Scripture for yourself?

 

[Tiberius1701]

P.S. Since, as I’ve pointed out before, the Church is the very Body of Christ, when we say that the Church wrote the Bible or that the Church baptizes the catechumen (regardless of age), we’re affirming, not denying, that God is the author of the Bible and the actor in the Baptism, just as we’re affirming that He is the author of Sacred Tradition (hence its being called “Sacred”).

 

[Mickey]

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to refer to the word “households” to support belief in infant baptism. Even so, can you honestly not see that it’s not so cut and dried as to leave no doubt based only on scripture?

Do you realize how large the families were for that era and ethnicity? There is no doubt in my mind that there were infants in these households. I believe it is a given.

All of the descriptions of metaphors and allegories, plus ECF references to it, allow me to understand why you believe it. But, the lack of specific instruction to baptize infants IMO calls into question the both the necessity and efficacy of the practice.

I have known many who struggle as you do. And I know many who completely convinced once they saw the mountain evidence.

Metanoia will only come by grace.

 

[DrPiano]

The bolded part is not what I believe. That’s why I have no problem with the practice of infant baptism. I do believe that whatever is taught as “necessary and required” to believe should be explicit. That idea is not without scriptural basis:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
*All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
*

I’m not closed to the idea of coming around to a more Catholic or Orthodox view on the matter, but there are challenges. If I ever do, I will have to be able to be 100% sincere about it.

As someone else pointed out, PLeeD, a) you’ve taken that verse out of it’s immediate context and b) you’ve added words that aren’t there. It does not say that “Only scripture…”, it says “all Scripture.” It does not discount Sacred Tradition (inspired by God, handed on by word of mouth from the Apostles to their Successors, the Bishops).

And as for the second verse, that scripture is involved in making the man of God perfect (or complete as other translations say) does not mean that it is the only thing that does so. If I say that a suit of armor makes a knight complete (or perfect, in your translation), I would be correct. Without a suit of armor, a knight would not be complete - he would be lacking something quite necessary. But the converse isn’t true - if I put a suit of armor on an untrained peasant, he would not be a complete knight. He would be a peasant in a suit of armor. A knight needs proper training, for a quest he needs a horse, he needs the virtues of knighthood (bravery, courage, chivalry, steadfastness, loyalty, etc.) - without these he, too, is not complete. But a knight, complete with everything but his armor, is not complete - the armor completes him. Similarly, “the man of God” is not just anyone to whom scripture has been handed. Scripture completes the “man of God”, but it is not the only thing that does so: the man of God needs faith, needs to remain in Christ, need to obey Christ, and… “hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). After all, it is the Church of the living God that is “the pillar and foundation of truth.”

No, if they used pots, then the dirt would gather in the pot and the next person washing would be using old water. Remember, the priest was “removing the filth of this world” from his hands, as he was supposed to do with this heart.

Hence, the water was poured out over his hands and onto the ground, or else the next person would be dealing with the same filth. How would you like to be the 12th person to wash from the same bowl?

And, as mentioned, the “baptizo” represented the pouring out of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts.

Interestingly, I’ve seen Jewish ritual washing in person. It is indeed accomplished by taking a small vessel (not unlike an eggshell) and pouring water onto one’s hands so that it runs off into a dirty water collector.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Interestingly, I’ve seen Jewish ritual washing in person. It is indeed accomplished by taking a small vessel (not unlike an eggshell) and pouring water onto one’s hands so that it runs off into a dirty water collector.

Huh, and I’ve seen Catholic infant baptism in person. Except for the fact that it happens over the baby’s head instead of someone’s hands, it’s performed in exactly the same manner… Wow, who’d have thought that our infant baptism would be so… what’s the word I’m looking for here? Oh yeah: biblical!

 

[Sonny69]

No, if they used pots, then the dirt would gather in the pot and the next person washing would be using old water. Remember, the priest was “removing the filth of this world” from his hands, as he was supposed to do with this heart.

Hence, the water was poured out over his hands and onto the ground, or else the next person would be dealing with the same filth. How would you like to be the 12th person to wash from the same bowl?

And, as mentioned, the “baptizo” represented the pouring out of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts.

Oh brother???

 

[Sonny69]

P.S. Since, as I’ve pointed out before, the Church is the very Body of Christ, when we say that the Church wrote the Bible or that the Church baptizes the catechumen (regardless of age), we’re affirming, not denying, that God is the author of the Bible and the actor in the Baptism, just as we’re affirming that He is the author of Sacred Tradition (hence its being called “Sacred”).

Circular, but works for you!

 

[PJM]

VEREY=Tezza;7842334]Yes.

My head is spinning from what he wrote here, but maybe someone else could decipher it:

Place Adam in the garden of Eden as an infant when God created the world. There he is in paradise 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months, etc., God tells the 6 month old Adam, “In the day you eat of the tree you die”. What would Adam do? He would not violate the law of sin and of death for he would not be able. Note Romans 5:13, “…sin is not IMPUTED when there is no law”. The Law is there, but Adam would not understand. Incapable. To the babies belongs the kingdom of God. Adam was a full grown man when created and to compare babies to Adam and say babies need salvation? The truth is that infants today bear the consequences of Adam’s sin “thorns and thistles” in other words sickness, disease, cancer, accidents, but Adam’s personal sin has not been imputed unto their souls. Babies break fellowship with God the same way Adam would have if he had been created as an infant. When they grow to full understanding.

VERY WELL SAID…THANKS!

I think perhaps you are addressing just half the issUe for some Protestants… Many, as you articulate well ,do not understand the Concept and severity of Original Sin. But Jesus Himself in John 3; 5 clearly expresses that “Baptism is needed for salvation…PERIOD”

John.3: "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”.

The offter “half” of the issue is cupability: the ability to commit sin requires that one be of sufficient age to KNOW what a sin is before it can be one. This is a RIGHT understanding WHEN one understands that GOD"S LAWS are COMMANDED AND WRITTEN BY GOD; not mortal men.

A Third issue of the reality of a MORTAL SIN can also be factored into the discussion.

God’s Judgment of Adam and EVE was and continues to be SEVERE in the EXTREME from our perspective of hindsite]. God was THERE! God knew all that he ahd given them; what to day we would call a PERFECT existence; without ANY REAL desires not wrought from PRIDE. To death, sicjness, clothes needed, food needed; in short ALL they had to do was:

Know God
Love God
Serve God
THANK God
and OBEY GOD…

That was insuficient for them: They like so many today want to BE godAnd that is what Satan promised them. PRIDE permitted them to believe Satan despite ALL that God had given to them THIS IS RIGHTLY VIEWD BY GOD TO BE SO SERIOUS THAT ALL OF HUMANITY MUST SHARE IN THE CONSEQUENCES.

It is this lack of Confedience and beleif in God’s Justice that tempers God’s love; and causes prideful people to think they do know more and know better then their God.

God Bless you!

Pat

 

[NotWorthy]

Oh brother???

Great retort!!!

You win…

 

[Randy_Carson]

All I mean is that the word “household” is less specific than if the text said “adults, children, and infants” were baptized.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to refer to the word “households” to support belief in infant baptism. Even so, can you honestly not see that it’s not so cut and dried as to leave no doubt based only on scripture?

This, my separated brother, is why Catholics look to the Scriptures, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church - and not to the Bible Alone - for clarification on doctrinal matters.

Scripture is NOT completely clear on all matters; therefore, Scripture is not formally sufficient. Consequently, sola scriptura fails.

You have to understand that after having a particular lifelong view of the use and meaning of baptism, and seeking to validate all spiritual beliefs based on scripture, that it is a hurdle to accept something new that I don’t find to be implicit in scripture.

Infant baptism is implicit in the idea that whole households were baptized. No explicit prohibition of infant baptism exists in these passages. At the same time, there is no explicit mention of infant baptism, either.

All of the descriptions of metaphors and allegories, plus ECF references to it, allow me to understand why you believe it. But, the lack of specific instruction to baptize infants IMO calls into question the both the necessity and efficacy of the practice.

Since the arguments you listed support (or offer no obstacles to) the view that infants may be baptized, one has to question whether the much later prohibition is not the innovation unknown in apostolic times, don’t they? IOW, if infant baptism was prohibited by the Apostles, why is there no written record of anyone objecting to the practice? How did something so “obvious” go unquestioned as it spread throughout the Church all over the world?

 

[PJM]

=PLeeD;7843610]But are you saying then that unbaptized infants are doomed to hell if they die? I don’t think you are saying that, and I don’t think the Catholic church teaches that. I don’t think the church teaches that the unbaptized mentally handicapped are going to hell either.

So then, in terms of the Gospel of Jesus, what purpose does infant baptism serve?

I see it as a traditional ritual that does more for the parents than the baby. I think that infants are going to heaven, baptized or not. You disagree?

***The issue here is PROFOUND and to be noted as of yet NOT DEFINED or DECLAIRED either a doctrine or a Dogma of our C. Faith.

HOWEVER YOUR FINAL STATEMENT COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG; IT IGNORES THE BENEFITS OF BAPTISM; INCLUDING ENTRY INTO THE COMMUNITY OF GOD; FORGIVENESS OF ALL [EVEN ORIGINAL SIN] AND ALL EFFECTS, PAY-BACK’S AND PENALITIES THESE SINS MAY HAVE INCURRED UP TO THE POINT OF BEING BAPTIZED. AGE HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THIS; AND IF YOU THINK DIFFERENTLY PLEASE POINT TO WHERE IN THE BIBLE IT SAYS IT DOES:thumbsup:

The Theological discussion evolves around “LIMBO”, a Latin word meaning “On the fringe.”

Their are two parts to the debate: “Limbo of the Fathers” which their is very WIDE agreement /acceptance on; and “Limbo of the holy Innocents” like those murdered in Abortion. Also is the issue of Original Sin; which is a defined Dogma of the CC.

The "limbo of the Fathers was corrected by Christ when he desended “into hell / limbo” to release the pent up Holy Ones that could not, despite being found worthy, enter into heaven as it was BLOCKED as a result of O.S.; and reopened as the ACT OF REDEMPTION FOR ALL… so those folks in Limbo could now access heaven as can ANYONE found worthy apon their death [w/o mortal sin, and w/ belief in God].

The souls those who die w/o Baptism are either condemed to hell if this option was made available but denined; or they are in “Limbo” a place of No suffering but incomplete joy as they are deprived of the COMPLETE Joy of being in God’s Presence.

The CC permits one to ALSO hold as a REAL possibility; that they too are in heaven having done nothing on their own to NOT merit heaven. And God MUST be and is Fair and Just.

God Bless,
Pat***

 

[NotWorthy]

Oh brother???

I had an Interesting conversation with my priest after Mass today. Without bringing up the subject, he was telling me about some ancient drawings by Christians on the walls of the Roman catacombs and other sites. His homily was on Jesus’ word in John 10, “I am the Good Shepherd…” and he related how there were numerous drawings in the 1st several centuries of the Catholic Church which showed Jesus as a Shepherd and numerous sheep walking towards him from several directions.

Anyway, after Mass our priest mentioned that he saw several paintings/drawings that depicted the Baptism of Jesus at the Jordan. And these depictions showed Jesus standing in the Jordan with water being poured over his head.

Hmmmmm… Yes, I know this is not conducive, but I do find it quite… telling.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Tezza
Those who did not directly disobey an explicit command of God? I would think that would include infants and mentally handicap, yet they are still stained with original sin.

You raise a very GOOD Q here I thought I had addresses it eariler; but I’m easy to miss.

Here is Father Hardon’s Modern Datholic Dictionary Defination

http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

" ORIGINAL SIN. Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendents is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam’s sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means."

That pretty well explains why RIGHT?

God Bless,

Pat

 

[DENNYINMI]

How can sin be removed without faith?

If you took a random un-churched adult off the street, who knows nothing about Christ, and baptized them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, would their sin be removed? I don’t think it would without the repentance of that adult. Specifically, repentance based on understanding God’s grace, Jesus’ sacrifice, and faith in His resurrection.

A baby doesn’t have faith. Can’t have faith. Without faith there is no remission of sin through baptism. The good news is that God’s grace can exist outside of faith, so it doesn’t mean that everyone without faith and without baptism is going to hell. This is precisely what the Catholic church teaches. There is baptism of desire, for example.

I’m not arguing against infant baptism. As I said before, I participated in the baptism of my infant niece, and am her godparent. I just don’t find it to be scripturally necessary, and don’t find any intellectual arguments for its need to be persuasive. If I decided to convert to Catholicism I would accept it as necessary to be part of the church with no qualms. I still would not go around implying that unbaptized infants are doomed to hell.

So my question back to all of you would be, does the Catholic church teach that an unbaptized two-month old infant is more likely to go to hell than a two-year old infant who is baptized in a Catholic church?

BTW, thanks to all who pointed out the difference in the passage in Luke. I had only looked into what Mark says about it.

I find the biggest objection to infant baptism in this one post…it sums up the Protestant view quite nicely!
Your first question in your post…“how can sin be removed without faith” is crucial in the belief that faith removes sin. I refute this with the one truth that Protestants and Catholics alike have in common…and that is the fact we are saved by GRACE.

Grace is given first and foremost…and further it is by Grace we have faith in the very first place.

Grace is a free gift…a spiritual one…given freely by God, many times over, not a one time experience…but it begins with the Holy Spirit. By the ‘power of the Holy Spirit’…we are given grace…grace to believe…then to grow in our faith!

It is crucial secondly that we realize it is not by OUR realizations in the knowledge of Jesus Christ…rather it is something the Holy Spirit does…not us because we have faith.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by PLeeD
How can sin be removed without faith?

If you took a random un-churched adult off the street, who knows nothing about Christ, and baptized them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, would their sin be removed? I don’t think it would without the repentance of that adult. Specifically, repentance based on understanding God’s grace, Jesus’ sacrifice, and faith in His resurrection.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION and the sincerity in which it is asked. If you Read John 3:5 and 36 …“Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” [36] He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him”

So Jesus Himself tells us that their are Conditions beyonfd Faith [which is always an essential **element of savation]; BUT in the case of Infants the Faith of the Church [Mt.16:19 and John 20:21-22] surfices and is further enhanced by the parents and God parents. SUCH is God’s Love and Mercy…

A baby doesn’t have faith. Can’t have faith. Without faith there is no remission of sin through baptism. The good news is that God’s grace can exist outside of faith, so it doesn’t mean that everyone without faith and without baptism is going to hell. This is precisely what the Catholic church teaches. There is baptism of desire, for example.

Actually NOT

I addressed above the issue of faith. **Note in Jn.3:5 **Jesus does not mention it as an absolute requirement. No where does the bible SAY one must have faith to be baptized.

Acts.16: 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.

READ John 20: 21-22…We are to understand THAT WORDS MEAN SOMETHING. God uses the words he chooses with Perfect Wisdom and Knowledge.

[21] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”** 22** And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

**In verse 21 **God passes on to Peter and His Church the EXACT same PPowers that He; jesus came to Earth with as Directed from His Father. Space limits my responce but if you’d like a fuller explaination just send me a PM.

Notice also that Chrsit does not abandon the Church His one Faith; and sends the HS to be with HER [Mother Church…their were no other churches for abour 900 years after Jesus said this] in **Jn.14:16-17 “FOREVER.” Also in Jihn 17:15-19 **Jesus gives HIMSELF LITERALLY as warranty of Her Teaching Truth w/o even a possibility of ERROR on ALl Faith Belief issues and ALL Moral issues. So friend don’t be so quick to dismiss the Teaching s of the CC; in doing so you are doubting God Himself.

I’m not arguing against infant baptism. As I said before, I participated in the baptism of my infant niece, and am her godparent. I just don’t find it to be scripturally necessary, and don’t find any intellectual arguments for its need to be persuasive. If I decided to convert to Catholicism I would accept it as necessary to be part of the church with no qualms. I still would not go around implying that unbaptized infants are doomed to hell.

That to is an incomplete understanding of CC Teaching on the topic. Acts.2: 38 "And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus ***Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; ***and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

The Effects of baptism are MANY; Entry into the Community of God, and COMPLETE forgiveness of ALL sinas well as the necessary payback for all sins. Making one’s soul PERFECT until they sin again.

Unbaptized Infants do NOT go to Hell! They MAY [it’s been debated for more than 1500 years, they go to a place of No suffering; No pain, but incomplete Joy at not being in the Presence of God [KEEP READING PLEASE], called LIMBO.

Actually their was a Limbo of the Fathers [all souls who merited heaven before Christ ressurection but could not get in because the gates were locked as an effect of Adams and Eve’s Sin: original sin]. The Primary effect of the Christ redemptive act was making heaven available agian. Salvation is a SEPERTAE ISSUE. Their is WIDE Theological agreement on this issue. BUT on the LIMBO for infants; the debate is heated and ungoing.

Catholic MAY [as a valid option] beleive that our God of Love and Mercy would have to [absolute sense] permit the Innocents access to heaven because they were unable to make use of their Minds, Intellects and FREEWILL. Thus they were unable to choose God; BUT also unable to DENY GOD which is what het’s one hellbound.

So my question back to all of you would be, does the Catholic church teach that an unbaptized two-month old infant is more likely to go to hell than a two-year old infant who is baptized in a Catholic church?

NO…MAYBE We don’t know. We DO KNOW that allunder the age of REASON 6-7 yrs old, can’t sin in and of themselves. But Original Sin still LOOMS as a REALITY. Thus the rreason for Infant Baptism. What benefit might their be for NOT baptising infantants? Clearly the Church has the POWER to make this decision. Matt.16: 19 “I [Jesus] will [DONE DEAL!] give you [Peter and My One Faith; One Church] the keys [ALL OF THEM] of the kingdom of heaven, **and whatever you bind **on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” MEANING NOT ONLY SINS BUT ALSO COMPLETE AND TOTAL GOVERNEMENT OF MY CHIRCH. TO MAKE LAWA AND VOID LAWS.

God Bless you my friend; if you desire more info just contact me.

Pat**

 

[stevekehl]

I find the biggest objection to infant baptism in this one post…it sums up the Protestant view quite nicely!
Your first question in your post…“how can sin be removed without faith” is crucial in the belief that faith removes sin. I refute this with the one truth that Protestants and Catholics alike have in common…and that is the fact we are saved by GRACE.

Grace is given first and foremost…and further it is by Grace we have faith in the very first place.

Grace is a free gift…a spiritual one…given freely by God, many times over, not a one time experience…but it begins with the Holy Spirit. By the ‘power of the Holy Spirit’…we are given grace…grace to believe…then to grow in our faith!

It is crucial secondly that we realize it is not by OUR realizations in the knowledge of Jesus Christ…rather it is something the Holy Spirit does…not us because we have faith.

I would have to disagree with the assessment that PLeeD’s post sums up the Protestant view of baptism and salvation. As Catholics are fond of pointing out, some denominations require baptism for salvation, others don’t so let me run down the Church of Christ teachings. There are five steps involved in salvation, hearing, believing (faith), confessing, repenting, baptism. This doctine is based on multiple Scriptures.
Hearing
Luk 8:15 Those seeds that fell on good ground are the people who listen to the message and keep it in good and honest hearts. They last and produce a harvest.
Rom 10:17 No one can have faith without hearing the message about Christ.
Gal 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?
Believing/Having Faith
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:36 Everyone who has faith in the Son has eternal life. But no one who rejects him will ever share in that life, and God will be angry with them forever.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Repent
Luk 13:3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,
Confess
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
1Jn 1:9 But if we confess our sins to God, he can always be trusted to forgive us and take our sins away.
Baptism by immersion
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Joh 3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing.
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Heb 6:1 We must try to become mature and start thinking about more than just the basic things we were taught about Christ. We shouldn’t need to keep talking about why we ought to turn from deeds that bring death and why we ought to have faith in God. 2 And we shouldn’t need to keep teaching about baptisms or about the laying on of hands or about people being raised from death and the future judgment.
Based on this doctrine the CoC does not teach infant baptism, since infants can’t hear, have faith, and have no sins to repent or confess. We believe people must come to an understanding of Jesus message and sacrifice; and the consequence o frejecting that teaching. There is no set “age of accountability” some come to understand it at a young age, I baptized my daughter when she was nine, I was baptized at 11. Children who die unbaptized go to heaven, trusting in God’s mercy and complete knowledge of each person’s heart.
Lastly I disagree with PLeeD’s assertion that people can benefit from grace acting outside faith Eph. 2:8.
In closing, while the CoC has a definite doctrine of salvation, no one is turned away from our worship and no one affirming that they are a Christian is denied communion. What other Protestant denominations teach I am not sure about. Hope this has been informative. God Bless.