Pray and fast for conversion of James White

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peleus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Where do the scriptures say anything of Mary’s assumption? Where do we see anyone in scripture praying to her or any believer who had died?
Or how about indulgences and penance? Where is it taught in the NT?

Or that Peter was ever referred to as a pope i.e. the only leader of the entire NT church?
If you want answers to that, you’ll have to either search the forums for threads on those topics or open a new thread on each one and we’ll dive right in. You’ll see…

But on this thread that is not the topic, and I won’t derail this thread further by answering it here.
Would you agree that the scriptures are the inspired-inerrant Word of God? The catholic church as i understand it does.
With that in mind, are the Sacred Traditions of the catholic church also inspired and inerrant?
Secondly, do you know what all these Sacred Traditions are and when they began?
Your church teaches the Bible is inerrant-inspired. It is given to us by God. Do your traditions and teachings carry the same authority as the scriptures? Are they also inspired-inerrant?
Is Sacred Tradition inspired?
Are you claiming the teachings of the catholic church has been entirely consistent or that every church father agreed with each other 100% of the time?
Catholic Church yes. ECF and other opinions that are not dogmatic or doctrinal, no.
No doubt there are different opinions about matters in Protestant chruches. Howverer there is wide spread agreement also on important matters.
Again… this is just your biased opinion. To the objective observer from outside… it is not so.
Even if that is the case, that does not mean its not true. Only the scriptures are inspired inerrant. As far as i can tell
not even your church teaches that its Traditions and teachings are inspired.So Christian history cannot instruct us as to what the Early Church really believed? That’s crazy… the rejection of history by n-Cs is one reason their theology is so fouled up, and in spite of their propaganda to the contrary, there is no actual unity of belief. 😦
There is not a single Catholic teaching that contradicts the Bible.
It may contradict your personally held interpretation of something, but that does not invalidate the truth.
I stand by that statement.
Does the Catholic church have a final and infallible interpretations on all it teaches?
Do all catholics including its leaders understand all teachings of the church in the same identical way?
This is a smokescreen on your part. I can turn the statement around like this and make it appear to indict your own teachings for the same reasons. “Do all non-Catholics including its leaders understand all teachings of the church in the same identical way?” Obviously both would have to answer in the negative. However, the appeal to authority will fail among n-Cs because according to you the only authority is the Bible. A collection of writings which (according to your theology) is being accurately interpreted by every Huey, Dewey, and Louie who picks it up…without reference to what Christianity has believed for the last 2,000 years or anything else. Hence…errors abound.

Catholics however, do have a single knowledgeable authority to appeal to which can indeed offer interpretations where needed to correct errors, and heresies just as it has for 2,000 years. Try Vatican.va.

Please by all means bring these questions to threads where we can get into it and not derail this one.
 
What makes you think this is the roman catholic church? If you read the NT you don’t see the disctinctives of the roman church such as: the marian dogmas, indulgences, praying to saints, purgatory, the pope etc. The church of the NT is not the samething as the roman church.
Prove it. CAN you? WE can.
Besides - EVERYthing you listed about what we believe can be backed up with Scripture and is FROM scripture.

Also - WHO was Saul persecuting?

**He was persecuting the Church - right? Ahh, but what did JESUS say to him?? **
Did he say, "Saul, why are you persecuting THEM??"
Did he say, "Saul, why are you persecuting my CHURCH??"

**NO. **
**He said, “Saul, why are you persecuting ME??” JESUS identifies HIMSELF with his Church. **
Did he not say:
(Luke 10:16) "Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects me REJECTS THE ONE WHO SENT ME."


**
 
It’s an observation of history, with the Bible in hand.
So, it’s your opinion that God abandoned the Church that He Himself built and said He would remain with until the end of the age and started over with a new group of (Protestant) leaders who taught doctrines which were frequently contradictory with those that had been taught for the first 1500 years of the Church’s existence?

Is this your position?
 
I often find these forums a complete waste of time because the sorts of posts that people seem to like putting up are those that contain nothing but carping and slander. One would think that someone might actually mention some of the errors that James White has made so as to point out his shortcomings from real evidence. After all, using reason and common-sense are part and parcel of real theological discussion - demonstrating with sound argumentation from concrete evidence that James White has got it wrong - as opposed to simply hammering on the cradle crying, “He doesn’t like our church!”

In the past I have tried to engage in discussion and debate with Roman Catholics about their doctrines and dogmas on various forums. I find it surprising that even very educated people - like the celebrated Dr. Clay Randal (MD) who runs a website in which he lambasts Protestantism - cannot mount a coherent defence of their own beliefs. When confronted with exegesis of the Bible, when even the words of popes and church doctors are simply quoted back to them, so many Roman Catholics seem to throw their arms into the air and become hostile.

I can remember a debate online in which a certain Roman Catholic apologist, in defending the concept of Purgatory, stated that Job was a perfect example of vicarious atonement - that Job’s offerings were made on behalf of others. When I pointed out that (1) Job’s children were destroyed for their sins, (2) Job’s children were unrepentant and continued in their sins, (3) Job’s sacrifices for his children accomplished nothing for their spiritual or temporal estate, and (4) the clear teaching that the blood of bulls does not satisfy God - “sacrifice and offering I did not desire”, the apologist shut down. Despite claiming a superior case to Reformed Protestant beliefs, it always amazes me the blatant failure of Roman Catholics to carry their apologetics through to the end.

James White in my view is a remarkable man. His works have changed my thinking and my theology dramatically. I am a Reformed Protestant today, partly due to his efforts. White recieves abuse and silly gimmicky stunts like “pray and fast for his conversion” (I mean, really, who could take this kind of rhetoric seriously?) on a daily basis. Yet how often do we find him biting back with ad hominem argumentation? Never. White does what I think is a very Christian thing: he asks - “show me my errors, demonstrate from plain reason and the clear teaching of scripture my shortcomings, and if you can do so I will change my beliefs and words in a flash”.

I think he will be waiting for a while though.
Thank you Jason. You are absolutely right when you say, “I often find these forums a complete waste of time because the sorts of posts that people seem to like putting up are those that contain nothing but carping and slander.”
I have only been “here” for a couple of days, and I’m done!!!
 
It didn’t become a false system overnight. Little by little, until God finally said, “Enough!” and reformation broke out all over the place.
If the so-called reformation was of God it would not have made it’s fundamental teachings unscriptural.

Since Sola Scriptura [The lynch-pin of reformed theology] (in whatever particular variant you personally or your congregation hold to) is not a Biblical teaching, then the entire reformation theology collapses from a foundational error.

IOW, if SS is error, then the subsequent doctrines derived from it are also error. (I grant that some may not be since even a stopped clock is right twice a day…Still all are suspect.)
 
Is the church inspired-inerrant as the scriptures are? Of course not. The church can and has erred while the scriptures have not.
Not the Catholic Church, and you cannot support your statement with facts…
If you wish to attempt to prove your rhetorical case, then open a new thread on it and do so. I don’t believe that you can, and I suspect that all you’ll do is cough up some variant of the Boettner List, which has been refuted all over the place..

But feel free to knock yourself out…:newidea:
 
Thank you Jason. You are absolutely right when you say, “I often find these forums a complete waste of time because the sorts of posts that people seem to like putting up are those that contain nothing but carping and slander.”
I have only been “here” for a couple of days, and I’m done!!!
If you have a specific question, start a thread.

Participating in a thread about one of the most notorious anti-Catholics alive today is not a great way to start your time “here”.
 
No, but it certainly helps to trace the line of correct beliefs and teachings all the way back to the New Testament, and assure a correct understanding of the NT.Based upon this fallacious logic, the Arian heresy would never have been answered, as well as the host of other such heresies over the life of the church so far.
FONT]
.This is a smokescreen on your part. I can turn the statement around like this and make it appear to indict your own teachings for the same reasons. “Do all non-Catholics including its leaders understand all teachings of the church in the same identical way?” Obviously both would have to answer in the negative. However, the appeal to authority will fail among n-Cs because according to you the only authority is the Bible. A collection of writings which (according to your theology) is being accurately interpreted by every Huey, Dewey, and Louie who picks it up…without reference to what Christianity has believed for the last 2,000 years or anything else. Hence…errors abound.

Catholics however, do have a single knowledgeable authority to appeal to which can indeed offer interpretations where needed to correct errors, and heresies just as it has for 2,000 years. Try Vatican.va.

Please by all means bring these questions to threads where we can get into it and not derail this one.
I would like to add this verse
(Matt 18:15-17) “Tell it to the Church.” Here we have a church that seems to be an authoritative church. Or else there would be no need to tell it to the church. Well which church do we tell it to? We have 33,000 churches to choose from. If I have an issue and go tell it to my Church and they tell me something other than what I want to hear, it’s OK. I have thousands more to choose from. What church speaks authoritatively to fulfill this passage? And if the Church is divided, how does it speak authoritatively? So not only did Jesus leave us with a Church of truth and unity, he left us with an authoritative Church that we can apeal to.

I would really like to hear there response to this even though many have bailed on us. 🤷

James White is not the only one we sould be praying for:D

We get kicked off there forums because we give logical answers and they have none.

And they leave our forums for the same reasons we get kicked off of theres.

I wish people would just stay and listen with a open heart. Look into what we really teach.
 
Hello justasking
I take it you can’t show me in the Bible where the essentials and non-essentials are outlined? Maybe you could answer my other question, do the churches agree on what all the essentials are or are not? For example, would infant Baptism be considered an essential for Lutherans? What about for Baptist?
God bless
I am shocked it went unanswered
Sorry i missed this. Yes this would be essential. Infant baptism can’t be supported by the scriptures since babies can’t believe. Nor are there any specific cases of it. I’m well aware that catholics will say its with families but that still is not enough for proof. Lutherans and baptist would say baptism is essential though they differ on the mode and timing of the person
 
Prove it. CAN you?

WE can.
Besides - EVERYthing you listed about what we believe can be backed up with Scripture and is FROM scripture.

Also - WHO was Saul persecuting?
He was persecuting the Church - right? Ahh, but what did JESUS say to him??
Did he say, "Saul, why are you persecuting THEM??"
Did he say, "Saul, why are you persecuting my CHURCH??"
NO.
He said, "Saul, why are you persecuting ME
??" JESUS identifies HIMSELF with his Church.
Did he not say:
(Luke 10:16)
"Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects me REJECTS THE ONE WHO SENT ME."

**
All the scriptures you are quoting here does not prove its the catholic church. Look at the church in the NT and compare with the catholic church of today and you don’t see the samething.
 
I’ll give it some thought. However, I see people on these forumns making all kinds of claims and sometimes these discussions lead to other areas. Its not always neat and tidy
That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be, especially when the Forum Rules mandate that all posts remain on topic.

That and the fact that it makes any discussion a WHOLE lot ea sire to follow.
 
I stand by that statement.
Quote:
Does the Catholic church have a final and infallible interpretations on all it teaches?
Do all catholics including its leaders understand all teachings of the church in the same identical way?
This is a smokescreen on your part. I can turn the statement around like this and make it appear to indict your own teachings for the same reasons. “Do all non-Catholics including its leaders understand all teachings of the church in the same identical way?” Obviously both would have to answer in the negative. However, the appeal to authority will fail among n-Cs because according to you the only authority is the Bible. A collection of writings which (according to your theology) is being accurately interpreted by every Huey, Dewey, and Louie who picks it up…without reference to what Christianity has believed for the last 2,000 years or anything else. Hence…errors abound.
Catholics however, do have a single knowledgeable authority to appeal to which can indeed offer interpretations where needed to correct errors, and heresies just as it has for 2,000 years. Try Vatican.va.
So you really don’t have in reality a final authority that can tell you what a specifc verse or passage means. Having a knowledgeable authority is not the same as having an infallible authority in which your church claims. I’m not speaking just of errors but what does the verse or passage mean. All you can do is to ask various people what it means. None of them have the final and ultimate say what it means. You to must live by what you wrote above—“being accurately interpreted by every Huey, Dewey, and Louie who picks it up…”
 
You can count on me and my wife. Friday may be a life changing event for Mr. White. He could lead so many Home if he would only take the first step to the Universal Church.

Tiber Swim Team member 00
Nathan
 
In the past I have tried to engage in discussion and debate with Roman Catholics about their doctrines and dogmas on various forums. I find it surprising that even very educated people - like the celebrated Dr. Clay Randal (MD) who runs a website in which he lambasts Protestantism - cannot mount a coherent defence of their own beliefs. When confronted with exegesis of the Bible, when even the words of popes and church doctors are simply quoted back to them, so many Roman Catholics seem to throw their arms into the air and become hostile.
Yeah right… obviously you’ve never posted to me before. :rotfl:
 
Sorry i missed this. Yes this would be essential. Infant baptism can’t be supported by the scriptures since babies can’t believe. Nor are there any specific cases of it. I’m well aware that catholics will say its with families but that still is not enough for proof. Lutherans and baptist would say baptism is essential though they differ on the mode and timing of the person
Off topic - but since you asked…🙂

Old Covenant

Genesis 17:9-14
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Leviticus 12:3
3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.

These texts show the circumcision of eight-day-old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant.

Connection to New Covenant

Col 2:11-12
11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant.

Do Infants Need Baptism?

Job 14:1-4
1 "Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. 2 He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure. 3 Do you fix your eye on such a one? Will you bring him before you for judgment? 4 Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!

Psalm 51:5
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

We are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the need for baptism from the moment of conception.

Jesus Extols Child-like Faith

Matthew 18:2-5
2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. **So why would children be excluded from baptism? **

(cont.)
 
Jesus Receives Little Children and Infants

Matt 19:13-15
13Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Mark 10:13-16
13People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Luke 18:15-17
15People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

The Church Begins to Preach Baptism

Acts 2:38-39
38 Peter replied, “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. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Peter did not say, “Every one of you adults”; he said, “Every one of you” without qualification and added “the promise (of the Holy Spirit) is for you and your children”. Baptism and the Holy Spirit are frequently connected throughout the Bible (cf. Ez. 36:25-27, Mt. 3:16, Jn. 3:5).

Acts 10:47-48
Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius which probably included infants and young children. There is not one word in this passage (or any other in scripture) about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15
13On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home.

Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children. Further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.

**Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls. **

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.

**Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith. **

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. This is another example of healing based on another’s faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.

**Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith. **

1 Corinthians 1:16 - Paul baptized the household of Stephanus (children?)

***1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents. ***

Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
Early Church Fathers on Infant Baptism

Polycarp (69-155 AD)


“Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (*Martyrdom of Polycarp *9: 3)

Irenaeus

“For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

Justin Martyr

“Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15).

Hippolytus

“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Commentary on Romans, 5.9).

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Council of Carthage (254 AD)

“We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.”

Cyprian

“Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.” (To Fidus 1: 2).

“In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man… Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision… we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another” (Letter 58 to Fidus).

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (*Letters *64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

(cont.)
 
Pope Sircius

“…we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy Baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls.” (Letter to Bishop Himerius, [A.D.385]).

Gregory of Nazianz

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (*Oration on Holy Baptism *40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly *, if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (*Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian *1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Council of Carthage (418 AD)

“If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema.”

Augustine

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (*The Literal Interpretation of Genesis *10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (*Letters *166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.”

“Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ.”

“For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin” (Enchiridion; ch. 43).

Hope this helps. :tiphat:*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top