- Status
J
jemfinch
Guest
Scripture does not record that the paralyzed man had faith of his own. What Scripture records is that Jesus looked on the faith of his friends and forgave his sins. "When he saw their faith, he said, ‘Man, your sins are forgiven you.’ "
I guess it’s alright to speak outside of what Scripture says when it suits your purposes. eh?
Why not? Jesus is God. God can forgive sins for whatever reason He wants.
Jeremy
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
There are not exception clauses the message came from God and is in scripture.
** Baptism by Desire **
The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): “He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” And again: “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins.
**Baptism by Blood **
The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven” (verse 32); and: “He that shall lose his life for me shall find it” (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text.
A full text is available at newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
M
Michael_Howard
Guest
Actually this is false. The church teaches a baptism is valid only if the baptizer professes an orthodox faith in Jesus Christ. The Catholic church considers baptism performed by groups like JW, Mormons, and several others to be false baptisms because of their heretical understanding of Jesus Christ, denying for instance that Jesus is fully God fully man.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, I do not understand it that way. Baptism is an initiation into discipleship. It is true that some persons come into faith, and begin practicing as disciples prior to baptism, and that no one should be baptized without a commitment to discipleship. But one could not say that the 3000 in Acts who asked Peter what they should do were yet disciples. Nevertheless, Peter urged that they be baptized, washing away their sins.
Christs’ command to baptize is ongoing action in the present (baptizing all). All who believe are to be baptized, whatever stage of discipleship they may be in. It is one of the Rites of initiation.
J
jemfinch
Guest
It’s actually unrelated to the argument as a whole. The word “household” included infants if the family had infants. That’s all that needs to be proven to show that the example in Scripture indicates that infants should be baptized.
Random Joe Greek Man with wife and child, upon hearing the examples of household baptisms in Scripture, would say, “I and my household will likewise be baptized, and my household includes my infant child because that’s what “household” means”
You don’t need to prove that the three households baptized in Scripture had no children. That could be true, and it wouldn’t prove your point. What you need to prove is that the word “household” (oikia) did not include children.
Of course, you can’t do that, because it’s just not true. A household includes the children of the family if there are children in the family. That’s what I mean now when I talk about my household and it’s what the Greeks and Jews meant back then when they talked about households.
Jeremy
M
Michael_Howard
Guest
Good question. I think it’s important to look at what baptism symbolizes and build from there. Under the old covenant baptism was performed on the 8th day of the infants birth.
Anyhow, circumcision was not optional but commanded by God and what were the benefits? The child then became a son of Abraham (Jewish) and was officially a part of the covenant family of God. Ask yourself, what would the consequences be of not having your child circumcised under old covenant law as commanded by God? So, if this was possible for infants under the Old Jewish Covenant, how much more is it possible for the New Covenant we have in Christ Jesus, Who says:
“Let the children be, do not keep them back from me; the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14)
Now the fundamental difference between baptism and circumcision is that baptism is a sacrament where as circumcision was a symbol, a symbol with real consequnces but it did not wash away sin:
“In Him, you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with Him in Baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the power of God, Who raised Him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11-12)
So baptism is not merley washing away of sins but it is entering into the covenant of the Triune God where we recieve sonship with Jesus Christ and this mirrors circumcision under the old covenant. Now the scripture states that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, if he offered sonship to infants in the old testament and all of the covenant benefits how much more to those baptized into Christ?
The Catholic position has always been that we are all born into origanal sin and this differs from guilt. The child is not guilty of sin but is born with the stain of sin originating from the fall so the child lacks grace in the soul so the inclination toward sin is there and all people whether they have the ability to reason or not are affected by origanal sin.
The scriptures state that Christ came to save everyone and no one is excluded from needing salvation whether they are mentally ill or an infant, He is the savior of all men.
So in baptism the stain of origanal sin is washed away, we recieve the Holy Spirit and enter into the covenant family of God and become His adopted sons and daughters. There was no contention of this teaching for 1500 years until the 16th century and if anyone has prrof that there was please show me the evidence.
And so, while there is no specific mention of infants being Baptized, we do see numerous allusions to it in Scripture There is also no mention of the mentally handicapped being baptized but are we to assume they were not? For example, after Peter gives his public address on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:37-39 tells us,
“Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, ‘What are we to do, my brothers?’ 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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to YOUR CHILDREN and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:37-39)Also, Scripture gives us numerous accounts of entire households being Baptized. Here again, the Greek word for “household” assumes that children and babies are included:
Acts 16:14-15 – “One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God, listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. After she AND HER HOUSEHOLD had been baptized, she offered us an invitation …”
Acts 16:30-33 --“Then he (the jailer) brought them out and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they (Paul & Silas) said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus and you AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD will be saved.’ So they spoke the Word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. He took them in at that hour of the night (midnight, v. 25) and bathed their wounds; then he and ALL HIS FAMILY were baptized at once.”
Acts 18:8 --“Crispus, the synagogue official, came to believe in the Lord along with his ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD, and many of the Corinthians who heard believed and were baptized.”
See also Acts 10:24-27 & 10:44-48 where Peter Baptizes the entire family of Cornelius.
Anyhow, circumcision was not optional but commanded by God and what were the benefits? The child then became a son of Abraham (Jewish) and was officially a part of the covenant family of God. Ask yourself, what would the consequences be of not having your child circumcised under old covenant law as commanded by God? So, if this was possible for infants under the Old Jewish Covenant, how much more is it possible for the New Covenant we have in Christ Jesus, Who says:
“Let the children be, do not keep them back from me; the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14)
Now the fundamental difference between baptism and circumcision is that baptism is a sacrament where as circumcision was a symbol, a symbol with real consequnces but it did not wash away sin:
“In Him, you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with Him in Baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the power of God, Who raised Him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11-12)
So baptism is not merley washing away of sins but it is entering into the covenant of the Triune God where we recieve sonship with Jesus Christ and this mirrors circumcision under the old covenant. Now the scripture states that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, if he offered sonship to infants in the old testament and all of the covenant benefits how much more to those baptized into Christ?
The Catholic position has always been that we are all born into origanal sin and this differs from guilt. The child is not guilty of sin but is born with the stain of sin originating from the fall so the child lacks grace in the soul so the inclination toward sin is there and all people whether they have the ability to reason or not are affected by origanal sin.
The scriptures state that Christ came to save everyone and no one is excluded from needing salvation whether they are mentally ill or an infant, He is the savior of all men.
So in baptism the stain of origanal sin is washed away, we recieve the Holy Spirit and enter into the covenant family of God and become His adopted sons and daughters. There was no contention of this teaching for 1500 years until the 16th century and if anyone has prrof that there was please show me the evidence.
And so, while there is no specific mention of infants being Baptized, we do see numerous allusions to it in Scripture There is also no mention of the mentally handicapped being baptized but are we to assume they were not? For example, after Peter gives his public address on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:37-39 tells us,
“Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, ‘What are we to do, my brothers?’ 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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to YOUR CHILDREN and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:37-39)Also, Scripture gives us numerous accounts of entire households being Baptized. Here again, the Greek word for “household” assumes that children and babies are included:
Acts 16:14-15 – “One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God, listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. After she AND HER HOUSEHOLD had been baptized, she offered us an invitation …”
Acts 16:30-33 --“Then he (the jailer) brought them out and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they (Paul & Silas) said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus and you AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD will be saved.’ So they spoke the Word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. He took them in at that hour of the night (midnight, v. 25) and bathed their wounds; then he and ALL HIS FAMILY were baptized at once.”
Acts 18:8 --“Crispus, the synagogue official, came to believe in the Lord along with his ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD, and many of the Corinthians who heard believed and were baptized.”
See also Acts 10:24-27 & 10:44-48 where Peter Baptizes the entire family of Cornelius.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
However in the case of a Mormon or JW who agrees to Baptize a person, who may be about to die, in the Trinitarian form, with water, and intends to Baptize them, that Baptism would most likely be valid.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Also, an atheist, pagan, Jew, or whoever else wishes to baptize a baby or anyone as Christians do, can do so validly in emergency situations (like danger of death, etc.) Usually this is done as a favor to a baby’s dead parents or a dying friend – that sort of thing. It doesn’t happen very often, of course.
I seem to recall that adults can be baptized without explicit consent (while unconscious or unable to signal wishes, for example) if the person has pretty good reason to believe that they wanted to be baptized and are in danger of death.
This works because God is really doing the baptizing in all cases, and people only act as instrumentalities of His sacramental power. A little act in good faith is allowed to go a long way.
I seem to recall that adults can be baptized without explicit consent (while unconscious or unable to signal wishes, for example) if the person has pretty good reason to believe that they wanted to be baptized and are in danger of death.
This works because God is really doing the baptizing in all cases, and people only act as instrumentalities of His sacramental power. A little act in good faith is allowed to go a long way.
A
Atemi
Guest
We have no other option to understand it any other way.
Christ is clear:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…”
He did not say make disciples out of the baptised, but baptise disciples.
The vast majority of Catholics are, though.
A baby cannot commit to discipleship and neither can their parents commit them.
No. They believed the Gospel. They were thus disciples of Christ.
Peter did not wantonly baptise folks:
Act 2:41 “Those who accepted his message were baptized”
Nobody but disciples were baptised and only those that believed.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
I did not speak outside of Scripture. You did.
Jesus saw their faith and you arbitrarily excluded the paralyzed man himself from that group he was with.
You had no room to do so, but you did.
And who does God in His Word say He forgives?
We don’t have to search for “whatever reason.”
He already told us.
Luk 13:5 “No, and I tell you again that unless you repent, you will also perish.”
Hbr 11:6 “And without faith it is impossible to please God”
Faith and repentance.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
Yes. This is part of my point.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Atemi
I have been reading your postings on this thread and trying to understand your “point” but frankly I can’t determine what your point is. It would seem as though you are protesting the Catholic practice of baptizing babies, but specifically why is not clear?
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
As it is today in the Catholic Church no ADULT can be Baptized without first making a profession of Faith, and committment to follow Christ. remember that the great majority of those Peter and the others were preaching to were adult converts. Also remember that Jewish law required a man who converts to Judism bring his whole family with him, including women and children.
A
Atemi
Guest
Christ made no exceptions for infants in the Great Commission.
Because you cannot preach to infants.
Are you saying that those converts to the Christian faith in the early church coerced their wives and possibly teen family members to “convert” as well…all with the official apporval of the Apostles?
If you can please cite a source for this absolutely amazing and novel claim, that would be great.
…
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
When he provides this information will you then see Catholicism as it truely is, the Church as founded by Christ?
This answer seems important to you. Brace yourself.
A
Atemi
Guest
No. Not at all, as that information alone makes no such claims.
If the poster believes that whole families were coerced into baptism without personal faith…all with the acceptance of the Apostles…that will need some evidence.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
And slaves, don’t forget about the slaves that were baptised as well as part of the families. Will biblical evidence be enough?
A
Atemi
Guest
So unbelieving slaves were also water baptised with the blessing of the Apostles.
Yes. Evidence would be great.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
You didn’t read my post correctly. I said that Judaism required a person who was converting to bring their whole family with them. Because of this they would have expected the same when converting to Christianity. I did not say that the apostles or the Church required them to do so. But because it was the common practice in Judaism, many whole families would have converted together. Acts 16:32-33 is an example. As was the practice to circumcise a male infant on the eighth day, to make them one with God’s people, so it is with Baptism infants. Which Peter says replaces circumcision. 1 Peter 3:21, Col 2:11-12
- Status