Debating CoC preacher about Infant Baptism

[Bussi]

Sadly, based on the horribly shattered Body of Christ, far too few are truly taking your advice.

See Post #229 for deleted text. Total character count would have been 74,000 + thus exceeding the 60,000 limit.

The sorrowful state of the Body of Christ today is because far too many reverse this process and never get around to steps one and two.

po18guy,

Amen to that!! Re: “let him deny himself, take up his cross, then come and follow,” I must deny myself the luxury of choosing “cafeteria style” what I want to believe instead what I find I must believe through the use of my God-given gifts of intellect and reason and the teaching of the first apostles (who in essence received what might even be considered seminary training and ordination directly by Jesus during His public life) that they passed on to their succesors, the unbroken line of some 260 + popes and also bishops who are the successors of the other 10 of the original twelve. (I do realize I am speaking here of the Sacrament of Holy Orders of the Catholic Church.) Some years ago I sent an email describing my belief in the “Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ” in the Blessed Sacrament (Communion) to a non-Catholic friend. I was not trying to proselytize but he wrote back: “You have stated your position and now I will mine…”). I did not think or intend that what I said was a statement of “position,” but nothing but my own sincere belief. I had no intention of causing an argument since I believe that the proper pursuit of truth lies in both parties recognizing that both have sincere beliefs so that calm and deliberate dialogue occurs. I seems to me that all too often that the discussion sometimes doesn’t get to the real underlying premises and their bases of both parties really don’t get the attention they should. If one side of the debate can get the other side to accept the first side’s premises then the debate is over at that point and the first side has won. It was a common approach for the Communists to say “let’s sit down and talk about how to divide your half of the world.” If you agree to that kind of premise you have already lost before have even sat down at the conference table.

In these Forum discussions we need to recognize that they are a search for THE Truth and what it actually is instead of what we personally/individually have been led or taught to believe and consider our own truth. Can there ever be 40,000 different truths (latest number I have heard)? There is only one TRUTH and that is God Himself. I personally cannot and never will believe that the Holy Spirit is capable of telling 40,000 different truths (however the number is and maybe will be. Pontius Pilate obviously didn’t know or understand the implications of his saying, “what is truth?”

 

[Nicea325]

Sorry, forgot to respond to this part. The true Christian guards against allowing personal glory to interfer with Bible study.
Gal 5:24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
The massive divisions more often than not, were caused by minor disagreements; how often should we have communion; should we use wine or grape juice for communion; should we baptise by immersion; sometimes divisions were simply personal disagreements gone too far, sad to say. The main thing is that most denominations agree on almost everything.
Having one person in charge is not always good, and is not the secret to unity in the RCC. The church was unified for 1500 years because anyone who disagreed was kicked out, in believe it’s called excommunication. After the Reformation, parishoners who disagreed with Catholic doctrine could leave and go to Protestant churches.

Really? Is not ONE in charge in Heaven? Was not ONE charge of 12? I do not read or acknowledge a ‘democractic’ Church founded by Jesus.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by stevekehl

Well, a Catholic started this thread so someone asked me, I was invited in. I started talking about infant baptism if you want to go back to post #158. So if all these all these denominations practice infant bapism then I do disagree with them. If you care to read it I said a person’s baptismal status didn’t concern me, but that I would share what I believed and why. Then we moved on to I can’t trust Scripture. Then it was that I can’t interpret Scripture. Then it was I have to interpret Scripture through the lens of what others have written.
Paul said Scriptural study will lead a person to salvation.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Study of Scripture leads to faith in Jesus and perfecting faith through good works.

It reads: able to make thee wise unto salvation… Key word: ABLE. Does not guarantee a promise or without a doubt ONLY scripture make one wise unto salvation.

 

[stevekehl]

Steve, how do you know we have all that we need? How do you determine that? And who determines all that we need to have?
What would be needed that is not in Scripture. People have different needs, yet each can be addressed through Scriptural study. Scripture speaks to each person differently. Not as a different message, but a passage that I read over may be profoundly moving to you.

Look at Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

As this verse states, believing, having faith is not enough. Something else is needed to enter Heaven. So, where or how do you find what that “something else” is? And who is to tell you what that is?

It is found in Scripture. Do you think God would give us a verse like this and then leave us guessing what His will is? Personally I think this verse is talking about people who claim to love God but their actions prove the opposite.Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus may have helped them…but it was to understand who Christ was…He was referring to the OT that foretold Christ’s passion…if you look at v46…“This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day"

It is to make clear He has risen and is the Messiah.

He explained to them that the Messiah must die and rise again was fortold in Scripture(using Scripture to back up the message). He then used Scripture to show His followers they should call the world to return to God in Jesus name. A last instruction before leaving. He then blesses His disciples, as I posted earlier a mix of apostles and disciples.

I think you should review the 2Tim3 passage again…

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture here refers to the OT, the NT is not complete yet. So, do you think the OT is enough to “that all Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, instruction”?
Do you think Paul didn’t know what he was talking about? Paul wrote his letters to Timothy late in life. By this time, mid-60s AD, most of the writing of the NT was done, and considered Scripture, so there was more than the OT. This passage also leads me to believe there were authoratative writings circulating in the early church. Timothy’s father was Greek, Timothy wasn’t circumcised, so I doubt his Jewish mother took him to the synagouge. Since the Jews regarded women as unworthy to touch Scriptures what did Timothy learn from infancy? If Timothy was a young man when Paul wrote his letters, how young was he when Paul first came to know him, 15 years, 20? I think Timothy was studied writings by Paul and the other apstles, copied and circulated by missionaries.
I think what St paul is saying here, that oral instructions, coupled with learning Scripture is a good guide or preeminent guide to our moral lives. But it is not enough.

Paul acknowledges tradition is also useful…as he states in 1Cor 11:

1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you
If these traditions are so important why doesn’t Paul, or anyone else write them down. When Jesus spoke of tradition it was always negative, don’t follow mens traditions that oppose God (Matt 15:3, 15:6, Mark 7:9 , 7:13) Could you list some of these tradition, besides infant baptism?

And holds the Church, not the individual as “the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” in 1Tim 3: 15.

Ever notice the word church is never capitalized in the NT. It is refering to the collective body of believers or to individual congregations in a city or region, never as an institution. I tried to separate these quotes, still gettin gused to the tools. I put my responses in blue in case it doesn’t come out right. God bless.

 

[stevekehl]

Originally Posted by stevekehl

It reads: able to make thee wise unto salvation… Key word: ABLE. Does not guarantee a promise or without a doubt ONLY scripture make one wise unto salvation.

If I am able to lift 30 pounds then I gurantee I can lift 30 pounds. If I am able to speak Spanish, then I gurantee I can speak Spanish. I don’t see any ambiguity in this verse, the only variable is the readers desire to put effort into study.

 

[Nicea325]

If I am able to lift 30 pounds then I gurantee I can lift 30 pounds. If I am able to speak Spanish, then I gurantee I can speak Spanish. I don’t see any ambiguity in this verse, the only variable is the readers desire to put effort into study.

No the problem stems from your poor intepretation and taking the verses out-of-context. No where is St.Paul defending Sola Scriptura…no where! Second, St.Paul was not writing these verses in defense of Sola Scriptura…no where. The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. It in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church.

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself (Apostolic Traditions)—and second, because he has been educated in the OT scriptures,NOT NT scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants take 2 Timothy 3:15-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition and scripture,not scripture alone.

 

[pablope]

Ha ha…now you need to learn to use the quote button. Do you know how to highlight a section of a post? Put the mouse at the start of the post you want to highlight, left click the mouse and drag it to the end…then click the quote button on top of the reply box. But smart using colored replies.

Going to your reply…and what has happened to those just purely doing a scriptural study? Look at the result…Harold camping, David koresh and waco…countless denominations. You still need guidance and an authority to set you straight if you go the unbeaten path. You hit the nail in the head…“Scripture speaks to each person differently”…is the scripture supposed to speak differently? Or should there be only one understanding? Which do you think God wants?

Look at Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

It is found in Scripture. Do you think God would give us a verse like this and then leave us guessing what His will is? Personally I think this verse is talking about people who claim to love God but their actions prove the opposite.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

That is why Jesus gave us/established His Church. So that we will not keep guessing. The will of the Father is to carry our cross everyday…so how will we go about this?

I think you should review the 2Tim3 passage again…

Scripture here refers to the OT, the NT is not complete yet. So, do you think the OT is enough to “that all Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, instruction”?

Do you think Paul didn’t know what he was talking about? Paul wrote his letters to Timothy late in life. By this time, mid-60s AD, most of the writing of the NT was done, and considered Scripture, so there was more than the OT.

Paul certainly knew what he was writing or talking about. But it is subject to misinterpretation without the proper guidance. I do not think Paul knew what he was writing would become scripture. He was writing for a different purpose and to those the epistles were addressed, he had already taught them orally. They were already catholics, and thriving Christian communities.

This passage also leads me to believe there were authoratative writings circulating in the early church. Timothy’s father was Greek, If Timothy was a young man when Paul wrote his letters, how young was he when Paul first came to know him, 15 years, 20? I think Timothy was studied writings by Paul and the other apstles, copied and circulated by missionaries.

Not at the time of Paul. The epistles were written to certain communities. You are not taking into account several factors here.

The Church was heavily persecuted from AD 60s to about AD 300+ and was largely underground. Not all would have access to the epistles or gospels. There was no printing press, so if something was to be widely circulated, it had to be handcopied. Imagine handcopying while under persecution and on the run and being underground. There were no monks and missionaries to make handcopies at this time.

Besides, how would they know what to copy?

So your premise that Timothy studied all of Paul’s writings do not hold water. Timothy had already been taught by Paul when he wrote his letter to Timothy and was not a young man when Paul wrote his epistles. Timothy was in Ephesus, doing work for the Church when the epistle was written.

I think what St paul is saying here, that oral instructions, coupled with learning Scripture is a good guide or preeminent guide to our moral lives. But it is not enough. 2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you
If these traditions are so important why doesn’t Paul, or anyone else write them down. When Jesus spoke of tradition it was always negative, don’t follow mens traditions that oppose God (Matt 15:3, 15:6, Mark 7:9 , 7:13) Could you list some of these tradition, besides infant baptism?

Because God left us the Church. I think you should contrast what is Sacred Tradition vs tradition. I am talking about Sacred Tradition.

Example of ST: the canon of the Bible, the Mass, worship on the Lord’s day.

Are you familiar with the Didache? Here is a link: earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

And holds the Church, not the individual as “the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” in 1Tim 3: 15.

Ever notice the word church is never capitalized in the NT. It is refering to the collective body of believers or to individual congregations in a city or region, never as an institution. God bless.

Which church do you think was in existence when this was written? Is your description or understanding of “church” the same as Paul’s?

God bless…

 

[stevekehl]

No the problem stems from your poor intepretation and taking the verses out-of-context. No where is St.Paul defending Sola Scriptura…no where! Second, St.Paul was not writing these verses in defense of Sola Scriptura…no where. The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. It in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church.

I don’t think Paul used oral teaching, but had writings that he carried with him. If you look in chapter 4 of 2 Timothy Paul tells Timothy to bring scrolls and especially parchment.
2Ti 4:13 When you come, bring the warm coat I left with Carpus in the city of Troas. Also bring the scrolls and especially the parchments.
Paul doesn’t call these scrolls Scripture, they may have been (OT), or letters from other church leaders. The point is there may have been written gospels, not the cannonized Gospels, but a collection of the actions of Jesus and His ministry, or writings by other apostles but there appears to have been some trade in writings in th efirst century. While these didn’t become “Scripture” it cast some doubt on the purely oral teaching claimed for the first century church.
Let me ask this question, if the traditions are all Scripturally based what is the need for Scripture? Or, if the traditions all agree with Scripture, why bother with traditions and just use Scripture?

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t think Paul used oral teaching, but had writings that he carried with him. If you look in chapter 4 of 2 Timothy Paul tells Timothy to bring scrolls and especially parchment.
2Ti 4:13 When you come, bring the warm coat I left with Carpus in the city of Troas. Also bring the scrolls and especially the parchments.
Paul doesn’t call these scrolls Scripture, they may have been (OT), or letters from other church leaders. The point is there may have been written gospels, not the cannonized Gospels, but a collection of the actions of Jesus and His ministry, or writings by other apostles but there appears to have been some trade in writings in th efirst century. While these didn’t become “Scripture” it cast some doubt on the purely oral teaching claimed for the first century church.
Let me ask this question, if the traditions are all Scripturally based what is the need for Scripture? Or, if the traditions all agree with Scripture, why bother with traditions and just use Scripture?

To claim that Paul didn’t teach orally is to ignore all of Acts, in my opinion.

The Scriptures help us to more clearly understand the meaning behind the Traditions. Just as the Traditions help us to more clearly understand the Scriptures!

I great example of this is reading John chapter 6 where Jesus gives “The Bread of Life” sermon. Understanding Catholic Tradition brings John chapter 6 into a much clearer light.

Coincidentally, understanding Scriptures (both old and new) illuminates the Catholic Mass like you wouldn’t believe! It’s like watching a play with the lights on, versus the light off.

 

[stevekehl]

Ha ha…now you need to learn to use the quote button. Do you know how to highlight a section of a post? Put the mouse at the start of the post you want to highlight, left click the mouse and drag it to the end…then click the quote button on top of the reply box. But smart using colored replies.

I think I’ve got it (we’ll see how this post works out).

Going to your reply…and what has happened to those just purely doing a scriptural study? Look at the result…Harold camping, David koresh and waco

Really? You’re going to hold these guys up aas an example of serious, patient, thorough Scriptural study? That’s like saying look what happens when people get a college education, you get Bernie Madoff!! These two are examples of people listening to authority figures without studying Scripture, the evidence is so glaringly obvious I’m not even going to post the Scriptures.

…countless denominations. You still need guidance and an authority to set you straight if you go the unbeaten path. You hit the nail in the head…“Scripture speaks to each person differently”…is the scripture supposed to speak differently? Or should there be only one understanding? Which do you think God wants?

It’s funny, but denominations generally disagree on baptism and how often to take communion. My cousin was getting married at his fiancee’s church, the New Reformed Church of God (I think this was it), so I asked my wife “What’s the New Reformed Church of God?” Well, she didn’t know so it got dropped until about 30 minutes before the wedding. We were on the road to the church when I saw a sign Reformed Church of God, but the address was wrong, 100 yards down the road was the New Reformed Church of God, they were neighbors. So I doubt this church split because of something in Scripture but because of in fighting. However, separation can occur inside a unified denomination. I’m sure there are petty jealousies and bad relationships withing every Catholic congregation. Those divisions are no less unscriptural just because everyone stays in the same church. Did rich families build private chapels on their property so they could go to Mass without mingling with the common folk, or associate with rivals they didn’t like? The only problem I have with denominations is when people judge another’s salvation based on what church they go to.

What I meant by Scripture speaking differently to different people was that certain passages speak more to some people than others. Take a recovering alsoholic who is just starting to study Scripture, passages talking about drunkenness, self control, moderation will mean more to them than they would to me (I don’t like the taste of alcohol and have no desire for it). This was a major factor in the Baptist formation. I’m not an expert on this but I believe it was founded in the 17th century by a group of men who had given up alcohol, replacing the communion wine with grape juice.

There should be one understanding of some things. God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence; the Virgin Birth, Jesus divinity and perfect life; His sacrificial death, resurrection three days later, ascencion and eventual return, the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Outside of that is details, I believe what I believe because of Scripture.

That is why Jesus gave us/established His Church. So that we will not keep guessing. The will of the Father is to carry our cross everyday…so how will we go about this?

It is found in Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit. Can a person who studies Scripture with an honest desire to learn God’s will, praying for guidance, trusting in the Holy Spirit, fail to find what they are looking for.

Paul certainly knew what he was writing or talking about. But it is subject to misinterpretation without the proper guidance. I do not think Paul knew what he was writing would become scripture. He was writing for a different purpose and to those the epistles were addressed, he had already taught them orally. They were already catholics, and thriving Christian communities.

How could they be underground and thriving at the same time?

The Church was heavily persecuted from AD 60s to about AD 300+ and was largely underground. Not all would have access to the epistles or gospels. There was no printing press, so if something was to be widely circulated, it had to be handcopied. Imagine handcopying while under persecution and on the run and being underground. There were no monks and missionaries to make handcopies at this time.

If you lived in LA and found out the pope had written a letter to the church in San Diego and you had to go to San Diego on a buisness trip wouldn’t you make the effort to copy the letter and bring it back to LA? I would. Then the chuch at Riverside hears about the pope’s letter, wouldn’t they make the efffort to get a copy? I’m sure they would, and so it goes.

 

[pablope]

I think I’ve got it (we’ll see how this post works out).

:clapping: Bravo…you got it.

Really? You’re going to hold these guys up aas an example of serious, patient, thorough Scriptural study? That’s like saying look what happens when people get a college education, you get Bernie Madoff!! These two are examples of people listening to authority figures without studying Scripture, the evidence is so glaringly obvious I’m not even going to post the Scriptures.

 

[Nicea325]

Then why do we even need Scripture? Just tell me what to believe, thank you. No one has answered my question about the atheist on an island with only the Bible to read. Can that person come to an understanding of faith in Christ and be saved. While I’m at it, can that person be saved even though there are no other people to perform good works for?

See the problem I encounter with many non-Catholics is the pitting of Scripture against Tradition. Both go hand-in-hand,cannot place one above the other.

You said:

Can that person come to an understanding of faith in Christ and be saved

My first question is simple:

Where does Jesus or the 12 teach the Bible-Only? Did Jesus come to found His Church or to bind on his followers the Bible-Only?

The Bible is one method of transmission of the Word of God,not the ONLY method.
And can one read their way to Heaven? Where does Scripture teach by merely reading Scripture one will be saved? You can read Scripture 24 hours a day,but that does not promise salvation or does it? Again,where does Scripture teach it is the final authority? What happened to the millions who NEVER ever owned or let alone read the Bible? Are they condemned to Hell?

 

[Keith_W_OR_USA]

I need help with this.

He doesn’t buy that you can raise someone in the faith (like in OT when baby circumcized and raised as a Jew) because of Heb 8:11. Here’s what he wrote

Thanks.
Tezza

All I can say is that Jesus was baptized when he was about 30 years old. I think that baptism by a person that decides freely to do so is more valid then infant baptism. However, nothing prevents infant baptism so it is a gray area. I was baptised when I was 6 years old and I was given a choice by my mother, long story, so I am firmly on the side of choice by the person that is to be baptised.

 

[NotWorthy]

All I can say is that Jesus was baptized when he was about 30 years old. I think that baptism by a person that decides freely to do so is more valid then infant baptism. However, nothing prevents infant baptism so it is a gray area. I was baptised when I was 6 years old and I was given a choice by my mother, long story, so I am firmly on the side of choice by the person that is to be baptised.

All I can say is that Baptism was practiced in the first century Church.
Acts of Apostles tends to indicate that infant baptism was practiced by Paul and the Apostles.

That’s good enough for me, because its not about my opinion at all.

You know, one of the greatest things about the Catholic Church is that its called “A democracy of the dead”. It sounds a little odd at first, but its what Sacred Tradition is all about.

 

[Bussi]

All I can say is that Jesus was baptized when he was about 30 years old. I think that baptism by a person that decides freely to do so is more valid then infant baptism. However, nothing prevents infant baptism so it is a gray area. I was baptised when I was 6 years old and I was given a choice by my mother, long story, so I am firmly on the side of choice by the person that is to be baptised.

Einstein’s theory of relativity speaks of “the point of view of the observer.” the explanation of this concept is too involved to explain in this kind of venue. I use it to make a point, to wit: there is a parallel to it in the fact that both sides of the issue from my point of view are being spoken from two different theologies, in fact from two different sacramental beliefs. In general, most non-Catholic denominations do not teach/recognize the full range of Sacraments that the Catholic Church does, especially the Sacrament of Confirmation. Yes, Catholic theology does and has taught infant baptism from the time of St. Paul. However, the Sacrament of Confirmation “completes” a person’s infant Baptism, (a choice made by the parent(s) who infant obviously has not reach the age of reason), because the teen-ager/adult is required to make a personal choice to be confirmed, thereby becoming a full fledged member of the Church.

My personal thoughts on this (from the Catholic point of view) are really in the form of a questions: Why must an infant be denied until teen-age/adulthood, the sanctifying grace conferred upon the removal of a Original Sin and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until teen-age/adulthood when the infant’s soul can be restored to the same state as the souls of Adam’s and Eve’s were when the were created and which enabled them to “walk and talk” with God in the Garden before they committed Original Sin resulting in the damage wrought our souls.

It is bad enough that even after Baptism we are still afflicted with concupiscence, the tendency to sin. That said how can we, in all honestly and charity, deny anyone the the graces that flow from the Holy Spirit that enable any of us to live a holy life, and obtain life everlasting through the merits of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Redeemer.

Remember the saying(?): There but for the grace of God, go I? We are totally incapable of doing anything without God supplying the necessary graces to accomplish His will for us.

 

[jcrichton]

All I can say is that Jesus was baptized when he was about 30 years old. I think that baptism by a person that decides freely to do so is more valid then infant baptism. However, nothing prevents infant baptism so it is a gray area. I was baptised when I was 6 years old and I was given a choice by my mother, long story, so I am firmly on the side of choice by the person that is to be baptised.

…so by your understanding, fellowship with God should wait say 30 years or so… wow what a great sabbatical that would be if education could be put off for decades; of course our political and other leaders would have better excuses when they fail miserably, wouldn’t they?

Infant Baptism does not mean that Catholic children are to be left up to their own device; Catholic parents and God-parents have the responsibility and obligation to instruct and guide the children in their charge into fellowship with Christ. The rite of Baptism is only the beginning!

…as one Great Man once said “let the children come to Me!”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_W_OR_USA
All I can say is that Jesus was baptized when he was about 30 years old. I think that baptism by a person that decides freely to do so is more valid then infant baptism. However, nothing prevents infant baptism so it is a gray area. I was baptised when I was 6 years old and I was given a choice by my mother, long story, so I am firmly on the side of choice by the person that is to be baptised.

Hhmmm? Then I am curious why Joseph & Mary did not let Jesus decide to get circumcised? Last time I checked he was 8 days old,not 30 years old. Time to brush up on the OT my friend. Nothing false about presenting or taking one’s child to God on behalf of mom and dad.

 

[rdscheirer]

Getting back to original post- look to Acts where it says Peter Baptised households. Would that include infants and toddlers- not according to the baptists in our area.They needed to be able to choose for themselves. So which is it -the parent decides(Old Testament) or the child decides((Protestant).

 

[jcrichton]

Getting back to original post- look to Acts where it says Peter Baptised households. Would that include infants and toddlers- not according to the baptists in our area.They needed to be able to choose for themselves. So which is it -the parent decides(Old Testament) or the child decides((Protestant).

…talk about reading into Scriptures what is not there; did you read Jesus’ statement to the Eleven… the part where He states to be sure not to Baptize children under “x” age? …and the Jewish custom about children not beign counted as part of the household? …oh, and all that talk about Yahweh God consecrating prophets from their Mom’s womb–that’s just not so; Scriptures did not really mean that, not even in Jacob’s and Esau’s case…

Sadly, the only thing that would filter into the mind of some is if Scriptures would have a six-month old John Baptizing one day old Jesus–what temerity of heart and mind!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[stevekehl]

To claim that Paul didn’t teach orally is to ignore all of Acts, in my opinion.

The Scriptures help us to more clearly understand the meaning behind the Traditions. Just as the Traditions help us to more clearly understand the Scriptures!

I great example of this is reading John chapter 6 where Jesus gives “The Bread of Life” sermon. Understanding Catholic Tradition brings John chapter 6 into a much clearer light.

Coincidentally, understanding Scriptures (both old and new) illuminates the Catholic Mass like you wouldn’t believe! It’s like watching a play with the lights on, versus the light off.

When I say he didn’t teach orally I meant that it is only logical that he carried written documents and used them to teach from. Like I mentioned in 2 Timothy 4 he asks Timothy to bring books and parchments when he visits. Traditions don’t really concern me, my problem is the church’s teaching that a person must agree with everything the church teaches in order to be in a state of grace and go to heaven after death. I think that God would include any information we would need for eternal salvation in Scripture since He desires all to be reconciled to Him.