P
pocohombre
Guest
If baptism replaced circumcision why did Paul have Timothy circumcised and baptized ?
- Status
P
pocohombre
Guest
Then why don’t you fully immerse, or do other things,traditions/rituals of baptism that they did in early church? Secondly circumcision was of no avail in OT so why would you replace it ? I think reformers saw the vanity of infant baptism also and tried to stick to the circumcision (baptism?) of the heart that Paul talks about,a baptism done without “hands”. If baptism were necessary for this new heart Paul never would have said I came not baptize but to preach the gospel, though I have baptized (after new heart in place )? Early fathers were just like us,batting around ideas of whta we think was meant by apostles and scripture etc. They could be wrong, just as sure as you and I could be.
B
bogeydogg
Guest
Actually you are mischaracterizing the CC position. Jesus does not respond to Baptism. Baptism is God working through means to save. It is not something we do at all, we are totally passive in it. It is done to us. That is why it is appropriate to baptize children.
And your reply that you respond to His love means He does something AND you do something and so at least in part you save yourself, and so you will have something of which to boast before God.
And I grant you that is found in the Bible. Paul declares may it never be.
As far as we do nothing but are baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit and raised to new life (Romans 6 btw)… let’s see that sounds an awful lot like being baptized and doing nothing but receiving that baptism. There is no response. No reply. No action from us. No good confession. (This was exactly the complaint of the Anabaptists.) The Baptismal candidate is utterly passive in receiving the new life in Christ
BECAUSE
We are dead in our sins and trespasses and He makes us alive. <— Ephesians 2
In Baptism. <— 2Peter
B
bogeydogg
Guest
Funny thing about details…
I am reading a biography of St Augustine right now who argued against the Donatists and re-baptizing. And it was absolutely because the practice stole the dignity of Christ.
In fact in Augustine’s day the Church was trying to convince people to not put off Baptism until their death beds. A practice people undertook because they understood Baptism was both a washing of sins and regeneration (Romans 6 again)
The Church wanted people to stop it because it was feared people would undertake to be Baptized in their old age apart from the Faith and the care and nurture of the Church. Baptism was not a mere get out of Hell free card which was exactly why men like Augustine and Ambrose (who was not Baptized when he was made Bishop of Milan) sought to Baptize children so that they could be raised in the Church and grow in Christ and be more sure of their calling and election by grace.
1 Peter btw
It was the seriousness of Baptism that led these men to give Baptism to children so that they would have the rebirth of Christ their whole lives.
After all if Baptism were only a washing of sin then they would have encouraged people to put it off until they were advanced in age and the appetite for the more grievous sins was dulled. But you never saw this line of thinking because all the Fathers understood Baptism in a regenerative sense.
And who ever told you differently lied to you.
B
bogeydogg
Guest
You are twisting the Apostle’s words. Paul says Baptism is an inward circumcision. A circumcision done without hands. That means a sign placed on the body but not by a mark on the flesh so as to distinguish this man from that by sight. The change wrought by Baptism in inward and so not immediately outwardly visible. It is the sign and seal placed onto the believers by the Holy Spirit spoken of Revelation. Not one seen by men, but by God.
The reason why Paul did not baptize is because the Corinthian Church was dividing itself up based upon who had been Baptized by whom. Some said they should lead because they were Baptized by Apollos and others said they should lead because they were Baptized by Peter. Remember Paul chastises this Church because they were arguing constantly over who was more “spiritual” and he wanted no part of that and so refused to baptize any of them lest they drag his name into the foolish arguing.
Furthermore Paul says in Romans that circumcision was of much avail. It entitled men to the covenant and promises of God. The problem with it is that it was twisted and made into a controversy by wicked men who took something good and made it a point of pride by stirring up controversies where none had existed and insisting on everyone doing it their way even though there was no Scriptural or Traditional foundation for it.
And concerning full immersion you should really do a topographical study of the Jordan river because the only times of year it is deep enough to submerge anyone was in flood. You can read the Book of Joshua to see what the Jordan is like in flood. It is entirely possible Jesus went down into the water by kneeling and John poured water over His head. And when He stood up (came up) out of the water the Spirit descended like a dove. The Jordan is so shallow in the south that modern day damning is threatening to dry it up in the south altogether.
Also if you look at the Septuagint you will see Greek for Baptism (which means washing with water not immersion btw) was used in the OT for the lave where the priests would wash but also for the people when Moses sprinkled them with the blood. So take care before you start accusing folks of abandoning tradition because it is not so clear cut as you have been led to believe.
U
UTUWEMA
Guest
Even if they can’t repent,we by faith ,we do on they’re behalf. Its like sending them to see the Doctor they can’t explain to the Doctor how they feel.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Sorry I haven’t read through this entire thread so I don’t know if this has been mentioned before.
And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud, and in the sea: 1 Cor 10:2.
So the passing through the red sea was a baptism of everyone who passed through it. I would assume that meant entire households, that they took their infants with them, and didn’t just leave their children in Egypt until they were old enough to make their own decision.
And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud, and in the sea: 1 Cor 10:2.
So the passing through the red sea was a baptism of everyone who passed through it. I would assume that meant entire households, that they took their infants with them, and didn’t just leave their children in Egypt until they were old enough to make their own decision.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Can a jesuit lie ? Have to double check if indeed it was in his book.
B
bogeydogg
Guest
Of course a Jesuit can lie who ever said different? Am I to assume this means you have no answer?
P
Porknpie
Guest
Poco, who says we don’t immerse? We just don’t only immerse. The Church uses all three forms: sprinkling, pouring and immersion. Sprinkling was even foretold of in the OT.
Ezekial 36
25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
Because Christ instituted sacramental baptism.
Well Origen says that bapitizing infants is a tradition passed on from the apostles. I’ll go with Origen and not a group of men inventing their own tradition.
“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).
“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
Poco, find a quote from an ECF talking about delayed baptism until the age of reason. The debate was on what DAY to baptize after birth, not what year as Cyprian states.
“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).
P
pocohombre
Guest
Do we know the Jordan of 2000 years ago ? besides in flood stage? Don’t tell me what it is today.Yes they" went down into and came up out of" and went where where water was plentiful (John 3:27),and it should typify being “buried”.
M
mloftus955
Guest
Original sin is taken away from infants, they are given graces and certainly changed.
Are you questioning that? For what purpose?
Protestants have their own thing with sola scriptora, private judgment anarchy. Not sure what your point is.
M
mloftus955
Guest
It is hard for me to believe you can call others arrogant, you need to look at yourself…
B
bogeydogg
Guest
Why do insist on pulling the least point out of everything I say and denying that? Is it easier to pretend I don’t make a point by building a strawman?
O wait… of course it is…
You mention nothing of my saying you had twisted the Apostle’s words.
You said nothing of Moses’ sprinkling being called Baptism by the Jews who translated the Septuagint 200 years before Christ.
Nope you pick out the one thing you think you can argue about and jump on that and ignore the rest, You still didn’t answer my previous posts about Luther and the other reformers btw.
Should I take this to mean you concede these points but proceed anyway in a view you know to be heretical for the sake of (GASP) tradition?
D
Darryl_B
Guest
I always had a problem understanding the meaning of baptism. It is after all just water, so I did not see how baptism itself was meaningful. Thankfully the Catholic Church answered my problem with the cutting off of original sin.
C
CaptFun
Guest
Not me. And the first Christians were mostly Jews who initiated infants into the faith per circumcision on the eighth day. So infant baptism would have followed.
Also consider how serious was God’s command in including infants being part of the community (from the very beginning). No sooner had God designated Moses to go back to Egypt and free the Israelites …
… than THIS incident occurred per scripture because Moses had not performed infant circumcision on his son:
So given this incident … how does God feel about parents who neglect to, or deliberately oppose the Baptism of their infant children in favor of some nebulous theology of their own devising?
Households CERTAINLY included the children, down to the infants if there were any.
If that is speculation … it is speculation with far more evidence in its favor than NOT baptizing them. And with fewer potential negative consequences.
Welcoming an infant into the family of God blesses the entire Church.
The child’s innocence helps the community want to be better and the world to be
cleaner. The child doesn’t DO much but be loved. But love of neighbor unto the
“least of these” is “done unto Jesus”. The baby receives sanctifying grace but
the community receives graces itself where hearts are open to them.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
The poster you quoted was doing the opposite of what you accused them of: he/she was expressing distaste at those who call others arrogant.
P
peace2u2
Guest
This beautiful picture captures the joy of knowing Jesus!http://www.danzfamily.com/archives/blogphotos/12/942-caroline-baptized.jpg
Welcoming an infant into the family of God blesses the entire Church.
The child’s innocence helps the community want to be better and the world to be
cleaner. The child doesn’t DO much but be loved. But love of neighbor unto the
“least of these” is “done unto Jesus”. The baby receives sanctifying grace but
the community receives graces itself where hearts are open to them.
I believe it was Peter Kreeft who explained Infant Baptism the best. He said that Infant Baptism fits the very nature of God’s love. God loves us before we love Him. Even our desire for Him is His gift. Infant Baptism also shows the wideness of God’s grace. God’ withholds His love from no one. Intelligence is not a qualification, only openness. And who is more open that an infant? There is no actual sin, just Original Sin, no guilt, no refusal and since we simply cannot understand how God’s grace works, we cannot limit it.
I think that is the most perfect and most simple way to explain it.
I know a lot of Bible Evangelicals like to work in that whole “age of reason” and being able to verbalize Jesus is my Lord and Savior - but we also have to remember that our relationship with God is a process and we can’t expect a 7 year old to understand what being saved is completely - that too is a process and trying to tell a 7 year old that can be scary - I think first and foremost we need to preach Trust - God wants you to trust Him and talk to Him even though you cannot see Him. We need to tell our children that as we grow in our faith and in our trust in God and they learn about who Jesus is, they will learn how God loves and how God wants us to behave and then there is the formation of asking God’s Holy Spirit to help us when we can’t do it alone!
Our spiritual journey is a process and what better time to start it then when we are born!
When babies are brought to Church to be baptized, it reminds me of the story of when Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to the Temple.
C
CaptFun
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/prayers/holyrosary.html#Fourth%20Joyful%20Mystery%20-%20The%20Presentation
C
Cak7711
Guest
I’m Protestant and infant baptism is wrong not because they are not worthy, but because they cannot physically do so. You cannot speak for your child and assume they will accept Christ. The day your infant comes to you and asks “mother I want to be baptized in the name of the father, son, and the Holy Spirit” then they may do so. How can a child get baptized in Jesus’ name if they do not even know it yet. Also, circumcision is not the same as baptism. It was not done to accept god. It was done to cleans yourself. Children didn’t need to know what they we doing. You don’t need your child’s permission to bath them. This is unlike baptism, it is done to accept Christ and cannot be forced on anyone. If the baptized child grew up to be an atheist then would they still go to heaven? Jesus said all you need to do is be baptized in his name. Just as an atheist could not be baptized because they don’t believe, a child cannot because they do not yet know Christ.
- Status