Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[fierysword1920]

In the context you have addressed my post I agree with you Notworthy, and I am so happy that you are willing to go the distance for our faith, very admirable indeed. I meant that I myself would not continue to argue a point that is fact, but to others is not because of other peoples misunderstandings of scripture which is as I said not their sin but Martin Luther’s, Satan and others like them.
God Bless you and may Saint Michael strengthen you in battle.

 

[NotWorthy]

In the context you have addressed my post I agree with you Notworthy, and I am so happy that you are willing to go the distance for our faith, very admirable indeed. I meant that I myself would not continue to argue a point that is fact, but to others is not because of other peoples misunderstandings of scripture which is as I said not their sin but Martin Luther’s, Satan and others like them.
God Bless you and may Saint Michael strengthen you in battle.

Yeah, I agree with you. If this were a one on one discussion, I’d have given Phil the Catholic teaching, listened to his points, answered to the best of my ability, and then walked away a LONG time ago. I would imagine our good Phil would have walked away, too.

To Phil, I love you man, and I’m glad you’ve taken the time to share with this obstinate Catholic, here!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

In the context you have addressed my post I agree with you Notworthy, and I am so happy that you are willing to go the distance for our faith, very admirable indeed. I meant that I myself would not continue to argue a point that is fact, but to others is not because of other peoples misunderstandings of scripture which is as I said not their sin but Martin Luther’s, Satan and others like them.
God Bless you and may Saint Michael strengthen you in battle.

BTW, fiery, Welcome to the Forums!!! And thanks again for the words of encouragement!!!

 

[GerardP]

This good learning can only go so far though, when protestants are arguing points based upon false doctrine created by Martin Luther, who anybody can lookup in history and see what a bloodthirsty despot he was, Catholics need to move on.

Please. Prudence is needed here. A priest once told me, “We don’t go running into Protestant churches shouting ‘convert or you’re going to burn in Hell.’ You don’t get any converts that way.”

You cannot help anybody see truth when they are totally blinded by lies and deception that belong to someone else.

First and foremost you are supposed to pray for them. The common sense of St. Thomas Aquinas can’t get through to a person if the love of St. Francis is not present.

It is not protestants fault for what they believe, their parents taught them and so on, they operate under the false guise that a reformation was needed, not so, well unless you consider Satans perspective it was a great windfall of souls for him, nonetheless the reformation was a victory for Hell and one of it’s top lieutenants-Martin Luther.

This is a bit tricky. A reformation was needed, a revolution was not needed. Of Luther’s 95 theses, 40 errors were condemned in his excommunication. That means he wasn’t wrong on absolutely everything. He was after all a Catholic priest. We all know that Luther was moody and his language was awful but you should also feel pity for him because it’s obvious that he suffered severely from scrupulosity. And secondly, each one of us is a top lieutenant for Hell when we sin.

Don’t forget, as bleak as Luther’s death looks from the Catholic perspective humanly speaking, no Catholic is allowed to damn someone to Hell. St. John Vianney spoke about the conversion of the thief who was shot by the mob while running across a bridge to escape the mob and fell dead into the river. His widow lamented that his soul was lost and the Cur of Ars told her that “He repented between the bridge and the water.” Remember extraordinary grace and miraculous happenings are a great part of Catholic doctrine. Nothing is impossible for God.

I am a Catholic because we the church has everything-all the sacrements, saints, devotion to the blessed virgin Mary, who is our real mother and countless other traditions. The Church stood as the only bastion of Christ on earth for some 1500 odd years, and still is the same in all its teachings today. Christ stated that he would be with the church forever and always. He did not say he would be with 50,000 different christian churches forever and always. It was only the one true church-the Catholic church. I don’t hate protestants, but I won’t come into collusion with any either. The Holy father and many of his predecessors have ruled on this issue, so I will not agree to any other “ideas” about baptism that does not comply with church teaching. I mean no offense but since I am Catholic I might as well be Catholic as I can and embrace all truths that Christ has bestowed upon us through Mother Church.

Those are all laudable reasons for a Catholic to be and remain a Catholic. But those are not arguments that convince someone of the truth if they don’t believe in the saints, devotion to Our Lady and all of the beautiful traditions that we have. If you can’t convey the message first and foremost that you have the highest concern for the non-Catholic. Namely that they get to Heaven, then anything you do is going to be percieved as an attack on what they percieve to be God’s revealed truth. It’s grace that converts more than arguments.

 

[nonsumd]

First and foremost you are supposed to pray for them. The common sense of St. Thomas Aquinas can’t get through to a person if the love of St. Francis is not present.

Well said! And let us recall Saint Francis’ advice, “Preach always – if necessary, with words.”

 

[Phil12123]

Yes, GeraldP, well said indeed!! I’m sure Fiery means well, though to me his staunch Catholicity does nothing to impress me or convince me that infant baptism is either biblical or pleasing to God, since GOD never commands it.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

And as one who drops in and out of this discussion, I want to praise NotWorthy and Phil2123 for their ability to keep this discussion a discussion and not reduce it to mud-slinging. So much more productive than invectives about either the Pope or Luther. I never have valued the ad hominum arguments that some like to use and you have both stayed away from them in a glorious manner. I for one appreciate the manner in which you have discussed this all the while holding strongly to your personal convictions.

And Gerad, thank you for your articulately worded post as well.

 

[Phil12123]

And as one who drops in and out of this discussion, I want to praise NotWorthy and Phil2123 for their ability to keep this discussion a discussion and not reduce it to mud-slinging. So much more productive than invectives about either the Pope or Luther. I never have valued the ad hominum arguments that some like to use and you have both stayed away from them in a glorious manner. I for one appreciate the manner in which you have discussed this all the while holding strongly to your personal convictions.

And Gerad, thank you for your articulately worded post as well.

**Thank you, GS, I’d rather do truth-slinging than mud-slinging any day! And, of course, I know NotWorthy and I have different views of the “truth,” but we can still be civil and avoid personal attacks. None of us on either side will ever know what Luther went through in his defense of what he saw as “the truth,” so no one can really judge him any more than you or I can judge anyone else on this board. Nor were we called to do that. We are called to love one another and speak the truth in love. Anything less than that will bear little or no fruit. **

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, guys, if we’re going to sing Kumbaya, I need to know what key we’re singing in…

BTW, God bless you all!!!

 

[GerardP]

Yes, GeraldP, well said indeed!! I’m sure Fiery means well, though to me his staunch Catholicity does nothing to impress me or convince me that infant baptism is either biblical or pleasing to God, since GOD never commands it.

Thank you Phil and I agree, that Fiery means well. I’m possibly more “hard line” than fiery is since I’m a traditionalist supporter of the Society of St. Pius X.

But I want to ask you a question. You say you are not impressed with Fiery’s staunch Catholicity. On what authority do you base your faith? (It’s been a long time since I’ve discussed religion with a non-Catholic)

 

[fierysword1920]

I agree with you Gerald, and I apologise if I had offended anyone, not meaning to do so. I meant to put Martin Luther in his proper context, and I also do not know whether or not Martin Luther is in hell because I myself don’t know where i’m going, I am as terrible of a sinner as there ever was. A great amount of info for catholics and non-catholics is to go on ask.com and search for Rick Salbato, works very closely with the Vatican and many Arch Bishops and Cardinals. He has lots of historical information written by people of Luther’s era who were not just catholics but people from plenty of perspectives-even non religous. Gerald I also would prefer Saint Pius Xth’s Catholic church, but for now I pray for Pope Benedict XVI and that he will guide the church faithfully and I really believe he will. I feel he a is traditionalist at heart and will stick to the truths as revealed by God, the Saints and Mother Mary. I won’t create my own personal schism with the church, even though the Pope will probably never know, but the Father in Heaven will and so I just follow my leaders even though I find seemingly some aspects of Vatican II out of bounds.
God bless you all and have a good night

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, truce is over. It’s back on again. I noticed in Hebrew the following verses in chapter 10:

*19 **Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary 20 ***by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh, 21 and since we have “a great priest over the house of God,” 22 let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. ****

Notice that the author gives full credit to Christ for our salvation while acknowledging that it is Baptism (what Christ gave us in John chapter 3) that is the means of our initial entrance.***

---

 

[Grace_Seeker]

OK, truce is over. It’s back on again. I noticed in Hebrew the following verses in chapter 10:
Notice that the author gives full credit to Christ for our salvation while acknowledging that it is Baptism (what Christ gave us in John chapter 3) that is the means of our initial entrance.***

---

hahaha
Now you’re arguing like someone who believes in Sola Scriptura.

 

[Phil12123]

I agree with you Gerald, and I apologise if I had offended anyone, not meaning to do so. I meant to put Martin Luther in his proper context, and I also do not know whether or not Martin Luther is in hell because I myself don’t know where i’m going, I am as terrible of a sinner as there ever was.

That is a very humble self-assessment. Paul also acknowledged that he felt he was the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). But Paul also made several other statements in which he indicated his assurance of salvation. This may be the wrong thread for this, but with all the sacraments you have, I’m wondering why you don’t also have assurance of your salvation and a heavenly home. If Jesus died for your sins, and you believe that, doesn’t His payment cancel out any payment you would otherwise have to make yourself in hell? If not, what is the value of His payment?

 

[NotWorthy]

hahaha
Now you’re arguing like someone who believes in Sola Scriptura.

How did Paul explain it? When I was among the Greeks, I acted like a Greek… (paraphrasing).

What did Jesus use against the Sadducee’s to discuss the Resurrection? Only the Torah, because that’s all the Saccucee’s believed in for Scripture.

 

[NotWorthy]

That is a very humble self-assessment. Paul also acknowledged that he felt he was the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). But Paul also made several other statements in which he indicated his assurance of salvation. This may be the wrong thread for this, but with all the sacraments you have, I’m wondering why you don’t also have assurance of your salvation and a heavenly home. If Jesus died for your sins, and you believe that, doesn’t His payment cancel out any payment you would otherwise have to make yourself in hell? If not, what is the value of His payment?

Because at any time, we can return to sin and slavery. We must participate in Christ’s Sacrifice in order to get to heaven. Jesus explained that any branch can be cut off in John’s Gospel.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

How did Paul explain it? When I was among the Greeks, I acted like a Greek… (paraphrasing).

What did Jesus use against the Sadducee’s to discuss the Resurrection? Only the Torah, because that’s all the Saccucee’s believed in for Scripture.

I’m not saying you were right or wrong to do so, I just found it funny. You’ll have to fogive my sense of humor. I see humor in all sorts of things that others don’t both the absurb and the sublime.

Anyway, I guess if I wasn’t laughing at the unintended irony, I would be complimenting you on the wisdom of your approach as well.

Peace.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m not saying you were right or wrong to do so, I just found it funny. You’ll have to fogive my sense of humor. I see humor in all sorts of things that others don’t both the absurb and the sublime.

Do you realize you are preachin’ to the choir?!?!? :bounce:

Anyway, I guess if I wasn’t laughing at the unintended irony, I would be complimenting you on the wisdom of your approach as well.

Peace.

God Bless you, Grace Seeker. To be complimented on my wisdom from you is like… wait, are you SURE you’re feeling all right?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

In Acts 2:38-39, Peter declares that the promise of baptism “is to you and to your children.” The Greek word for “children” (teknon) is the same word that is later used in Acts 21:21 to describe eight-day old infants preparing for circumcision. This proves that the promise of baptism is for infants. And speaking of circumcision, in Colossians 2:11-12 St. Paul says that baptism is the “new circumcision.” That is, like the Old Covenant act of circumcision which was given to eight-day old infants, baptism is the New Covenant sacrament that is likewise given to infants. God did not make His New Covenant narrower than the Old. To the contrary, in Romans 5:15 St. Paul says that the grace of the New Covenant surpasses that of the old, to include not only infants, but Gentiles as well.

I noticed the above argument which may be worth checking out.

 

[NotWorthy]

I noticed the above argument which may be worth checking out.

Thanks Daniel. I’ve noticed that linguistic arguments are only worthwhile if they agree with you. Once they disagree, “You mean I have to understand the original Greek in order to be a Christian”?

Well, no, but your Church’s teaching Magisterium should!

Thanks again!!!