Quaker babtism

  • Thread starter Thread starter IneedGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RICKY_RASPER said:
That said when baptism is mentioned in the Good Book it is always in assosiation with adults and never infants!

Your Presbyterian Brother in Christ,
Richard.:shamrock2:
Click to expand...
Consider: You are relying solely on the incomplete and fragmentary record that we call the bible. What? Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34 and others tell us this. Thus the fulness of the Gospel is held somewhere outside of the bible. What? Man lives on every word that issues from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4). But, every word is not in the bible, and we know from Isaiah 55:11 that Gods word does not return to Him void. Where can we find “every word” if they are not in the bible?

Again, the Catholic Church has the Christ-given authority to hold bound the baptism of infants (Matthew 18:18-19). As a principle, Christ said "Do not prevent the little children from coming to Me (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16). They are made parts of the Body of Christ through baptism.

I might note here that you disagree with many of the Reformed Christians, who baptize infants, as well as many Lutherans, Anglicans, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, Presbyterians :eek: etc. etc. etc.

As well, what scriptural source can you cite for non-baptized children’s eternity? Christ did not leave us orphans.

The following are at least consistent with the baptism of children, and God’s grace flows upon others based upon our own faith - otherwise intercessory prayer is useless.

Acts 2:38-39
King James Version (KJV)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Acts 16:15
King James Version (KJV)
15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

1 Corinthians 1:16
King James Version (KJV)
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

But, we digress…
 
po18guy said:
Consider: You are relying solely on the incomplete and fragmentary record that we call the bible. What? Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34 and others tell us this. Thus the fulness of the Gospel is held somewhere outside of the bible. What? Man lives on every word that issues from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4). But, every word is not in the bible, and we know from Isaiah 55:11 that Gods word does not return to Him void. Where can we find “every word” if they are not in the bible?

Again, the Catholic Church has the Christ-given authority to hold bound the baptism of infants (Matthew 18:18-19). As a principle, Christ said "Do not prevent the little children from coming to Me (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16). They are made parts of the Body of Christ through baptism.

I might note here that you disagree with many of the Reformed Christians, who baptize infants, as well as many Lutherans, Anglicans, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, Presbyterians :eek: etc. etc. etc.

As well, what scriptural source can you cite for non-baptized children’s eternity? Christ did not leave us orphans.

The following are at least consistent with the baptism of children, and God’s grace flows upon others based upon our own faith - otherwise intercessory prayer is useless.

Acts 2:38-39
King James Version (KJV)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Acts 16:15
King James Version (KJV)
15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

1 Corinthians 1:16
King James Version (KJV)
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

But, we digress…
Click to expand...
Hello Pro18
in reference to the following statement you made…
I might note here that you disagree with many of the Reformed Christians, who baptize infants, as well as many Lutherans, Anglicans, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, Presbyterians etc. etc. etc.

I do agree with the baptism of children, but I * strongly* disagree with the doctrinal view that unbaptised children who die are in a state of Limbo " limbus infantium" as the Catholic church call it. As you quoted Christ yourself… “Do not prevent the little children from coming to Me.”

My only question to you is…***Do you believe as the Catholic church teaches that children who die before baptism sit on the cusp of hell?.. ***

Your Brother Richard :shamrock2:
 
RICKY_RASPER said:
I do agree with the baptism of children, but I * strongly* disagree with the doctrinal view that unbaptised children who die are in a state of Limbo " limbus infantium" as the Catholic church call it. As you quoted Christ yourself… “Do not prevent the little children from coming to Me.”

My only question to you is…***Do you believe as the Catholic church teaches that children who die before baptism sit on the cusp of hell?.. ***

Your Brother Richard :shamrock2:
Click to expand...
Source?
 
po18guy said:
Source?
Click to expand...
Source? There are so many. But let us start with the Catholic Encyclopaedia on this site!

In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ’s triumphant ascension into Heaven (the “limbus patrum”); or (b)*** to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone ***(the “limbus infantium” or “puerorum”).
 
po18guy said:
Source?
Click to expand...
A few more sources.

The Catechism of Saint Pius V, commonly known as “The Roman Catechism,” declared without the least ambiguity the grave duty of parents to have their newborn children baptized as soon as possible in order to avoid their damnation:

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted, to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn baptism: infants, unless baptized, cannot enter heaven, and hence we may well conceive how deep the enormity of their guilt, who, through negligence, suffer them to remain without the grace of the sacrament, longer than necessity may require; particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

The Council of Florence declared:

Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than ***through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil ***and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people.[1]

Saint Augustine’s moral judgement on unbaptised children…

***That infants who die without baptism have the penalty of fire in hell with the devil;

That there is no place anywhere, in heaven, hell or anywhere else, where unbaptized infants have rest and happiness.***

Since that time it has been a part of the Pelagian heresy to deny that doctrine.

The teaching of St. Augustine on the fate of unbaptized infants was codified at the XVI Council of Carthage in 418, the Council of Lyons II in 1274, and at the Council of Florence in 1438-1445. The teaching of these councils is considered to be infallible by Catholic theologians because of the degree of authority given to them by popes. However, medieval Scholastics departed from the doctrine and revived the Limbo heresy of the Pelagians; Rome would now admit unbaptized infants to heaven in the universal salvation of all people.

The only word I have for these exploitative and un-Christian views is Sick.
 
Red-lettered posts are rarely worth responding to. But they are certainly worth reporting if they violate forum rules.
 
I was unaware that highlighting the relevant passages of the text sources you requested as proof was breaking forum rules! I would have used a highlighting function had the text composition box had one!
You do yourself and the site a disservice when you use threats to silence a genuine post no matter how uncomfortable the reading may make you feel. My mother (who was born and raised Roman Catholic) lost a child at birth. My father (a Presbyterian) brought a Priest to my mother in an effort to bring words of comfort. The Priest said that he would pray that the child might not " taste the fires of hell " ! My mother died believing she would never see her dead son my brother “Paul” ever again. Unfortunately my mothers story is only to common.
Your Brother Richard:shamrock2:
 
Please stay on topic, everyone. If you wish to dispute Catholic teaching, please start a thread in the Apologetics forum. Thank you.
 
But to be more direct…there is no such thing as “Quaker baptism”…there are Quakers who practice water baptism…but the only Baptism Friends believe is necessary is “Baptism of the Spirit”…the “One Baptism” that makes us members of His Body and joins us to Himself.
 
Publisher said:
But to be more direct…there is no such thing as “Quaker baptism”…there are Quakers who practice water baptism…but the only Baptism Friends believe is necessary is “Baptism of the Spirit”…the “One Baptism” that makes us members of His Body and joins us to Himself.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my understanding was that Quakers are Anabaptists–that is, no actual sacraments except marriage. No water baptism, no communion, etc. In that case, a conditional baptism would be required. Matter, form, and intent.
 
It is possible to be baptized in water, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and still have an invalid baptism. I know this because that was my situation (and I was not LDS either). Long story short, it involved an investigation, and discussion over the intent of the baptism, and a consultation with some higher authorities in the diocese. The conclusion of the whole mess was that it was determined to be an invalid baptism. Your best recourse is to discuss it with a priest, and he will advise you an what needs to be done.
 
adopted_heir said:
Yeah, my understanding was that Quakers are Anabaptists–that is, no actual sacraments except marriage. No water baptism, no communion, etc. In that case, a conditional baptism would be required. Matter, form, and intent.
Click to expand...
As one Friend wrote beginning with a quote of Teresa of Avila…"Christ has no body now on earth but yours, no hands but yours,no feet but yours; yours are the eyes through which Christ’s compassion looks out on the world, yours are the feet with which He is to go about doing good and yours are the hands with which He is to bless us now. -Teresa of Avila

We do not reject the spiritual realities toward which sacraments point. We recognize baptism as the transformation of life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We recognize communion as the presence of Jesus Christ in our corporate worship. We recognize ordination as the diverse giftedness for ministry of all people. We recognize these things, and rejoice in them, but we do not believe that the church should seek to initiate them through ritual means.

Without getting too deep into theology, it is important to bring in here the fact that our understanding of the nature of the church is based on a realized eschatology of the new covenant. The old system has passed away, and Christ is present among us to lead us into an experience of the kingdom, here and now. Therefore, we reject all interim structures of authority, and seek in all ways to be obedient to the immediate leadership of Christ. As the Friends in Lausanne stated, “We believe that a corporate practice of the presence of God, a corporate knowledge of Christ in our midst, a common experience of the work of the living Spirit, constitute the supremely real sacrament of a Holy Communion.”
 
Something suddenly struck me as strange.

Why fear baptism?

The OP is afraid to be “re-baptized”.

Personally, I wouldn’t hesitate to run towards baptism if there were any doubt of the validity of my first.

FYI: Private baptisms may be requested for whatever reasons.

One benefit of being baptized publically is that we, as a church community are more actively praying for you, and we assume tacit responsability to pray for you going forward.

It all comes down to your priest. If your priest says “baptism” 🤷 then, there you have it. If your priest determines that your first baptism was valid, you are golden either way. Unless for some reason you have lied to him. Please be very careful not to give false information.

Okay?
 
I would never give false information. Yes I am afraid of being re-babtized but ONLY because we should only be babtized once! If that were not true EVERY new convert would be babtized.
I want to do what is right before God which is why I am coming into the Cathlic church.

Thanks and God Bless
 
Publisher said:
As one Friend wrote beginning with a quote of Teresa of Avila…"Christ has no body now on earth but yours, no hands but yours,no feet but yours; yours are the eyes through which Christ’s compassion looks out on the world, yours are the feet with which He is to go about doing good and yours are the hands with which He is to bless us now. -Teresa of Avila

We do not reject the spiritual realities toward which sacraments point. We recognize baptism as the transformation of life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We recognize communion as the presence of Jesus Christ in our corporate worship. We recognize ordination as the diverse giftedness for ministry of all people. We recognize these things, and rejoice in them, but we do not believe that the church should seek to initiate them through ritual means.

Without getting too deep into theology, it is important to bring in here the fact that our understanding of the nature of the church is based on a realized eschatology of the new covenant. The old system has passed away, and Christ is present among us to lead us into an experience of the kingdom, here and now. Therefore, we reject all interim structures of authority, and seek in all ways to be obedient to the immediate leadership of Christ. As the Friends in Lausanne stated, “We believe that a corporate practice of the presence of God, a corporate knowledge of Christ in our midst, a common experience of the work of the living Spirit, constitute the supremely real sacrament of a Holy Communion.”
Click to expand...
Thanks for elucidating some. I admit I’m not a Quaker expert, beyond what my best friend has told me (“We’re not just oatmeal and root beer.”) I had understood there to be a very corporal government in the church–everyone has an equal say in anything that happens in the congregation-- and I guess I didn’t choose words very well. I didn’t mean to imply that Friends don’t believe in the graces imparted by the physical acts of the sacraments, but rather (as my understanding) in the necessity for the physical acts themselves, whereas Catholics believe the physical acts are necessary to impart the spiritual graces.
 
IneedGod said:
I would never give false information. Yes I am afraid of being re-babtized but ONLY because we should only be babtized once! If that were not true EVERY new convert would be babtized.
I want to do what is right before God which is why I am coming into the Cathlic church.

Thanks and God Bless
Click to expand...
I think you’ll find it’s ‘baptism’ and ‘being baptised’, should you ever need to look it up on google or in documents e.g. the Catechism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top