St. Ignatius who sat of Jesus' lap Matt. 18:3-4 & Mark 9:36 - how can anyone believe that there was a Great Apostacy after the deaths of the Apostles?

[ParkerD]

Seems like “prosperity gospel” to me with an added dollop of pillorying the poor.

Zaffiroborant,
All that tells me is that you don’t believe the writings of Isaiah nor of Malachi, but I happen to know they are true, by personal experience and observation.

 

[ParkerD]

While you explain why it’s okay to use water( or 7up or chocolate milk) and soda crackers or cookies or whatever when it was clear in the Bible that it was bread and wine.

I will be totally comfortable doing that, without the slightest hesitation. He knows my heart.

 

[ParkerD]

The idea that I would not include infants and toddlers as part of my “household” is bizarre and really sort of repulsive. What are they livestock, pets? potential household members?

Infant baptism shows we are a covenant people not only individuals who covenant with God. LDS keep saying that there has to be prophet on planet, that God speaks through him that’s the pattern but then ignore clearly laid out patterns that contradict what they believe is “truth”. Covenanting with a PEOPLE is a pattern that repeats yet it is ignored here in favor of individual covenants.

Zaffiroborant,
So are you saying you personally observed the few-mentioned “households” during New Testament times who were baptized after they believed, and you saw that there were infants and toddlers in those households and they believed also and were baptized?

 

[ParkerD]

Where do you get that there should have been an “uproar” from what I said? One man is also quite different logistically from thousands.

Again, a modern rich Western perspective. Travel and special accommodation was exceedingly difficult in many areas and for many people. Water in many places was precious and scarce. And, logistically, with many thousands, it was impossible to do as you suggest on that scale, particularly in short time periods as are described in the NT.
If you admit exceptions for such reasons, why not exceptions for the other practical reasons? The early Church certainly did, and made note of it in various early writings.

And then you have hypothermia for both parties, the logistical difficulty of dealing with any numbers in such a manner, and the likely added logistical complication of avoiding immodesty (normally one would strip off such wet clothes to prevent hypothermia). Remember, the Church often baptized hundreds and thousands at a time, not the modern-day few.

The simple historical fact is that the only texts that describe in detail the actual forms of baptism and how the water is supposed to be used include pouring to wash. Some state the reasons for that, and advance immersion as preferable, but none admit to the Sacrament being ineffectual without immersion.

Arandur,
People are baptized by cutting a hole in the ice, even today in some parts of the world. There may be blankets or a fire nearby–not so difficult a challenge.

I think each person baptized would want it to be special for them personally, and not be considered that because there were “thousands” waiting in line the single pure ordinance for them was less important and should be rushed or not done the same way Jesus was baptized.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
I agree that it does come down to having the Holy Spirit in one’s life, but I would add that that only matters at the individual level. In discussions such as these we have on this board, personal testimonies are useless since yours confirms Mormonism, mine confirms Catholicism and both cancel each other out. I don’t recognize your testimony as valid evidence that Mormonism is true; you don’t recognize mine as evidence Catholicism is true. So long as we stick with testimonies and personal experiences of the spirit, neither of us are using evidence that the other can access to review for himself. I can’'t experience your spiritual experiences and you can’t experience mine. That means neither of us can ever know for sure whether the other’s experiences are genuine. Sharing testimonies is pointless except for when you’re preaching to the choir. Why then even bring your testimony up? It’s absolutely true that the Spirit is central to our religious life, just as Paul said. But in discussions about religious truth and where the true church lies, we must also appeal to reason and the evidence. Personal testimonies are insufficient for that purpose and cannot stand alone. Our discussions will be a waste of time unless we’re able to settle on some mutually agreed upon evidences on which to base the conversation. For Christians seeking to know what the primitive church believed and practiced, the only evidence we have in common is the Bible and the other early Christian writings. Bringing a personal testimony to bear is a cop-out in a way, since you’re bringing evidence to the table that I can’t examine for myself. Your experiences are opaque and will always remain inaccessble to me, since they are unique to you. It’s in this regard that I call bearing a testimony a trump card meant to stop conversation.

Regarding “official policy”, the NT doesn’t need to explicitly contain those words for there to be sufficient evidence that there was an immersion only policy. All there needs to be is some statement somewhere by Jesus or the apostles that baptisms are only to be performed by immersion. If it’s such a critical teaching, then why would Jesus and the Apostles fail to mention it? Besides, thus far that’s the only evidence you’ve presented to defend your thesis that essential doctrines and ordinances were changed. Did you know that Eastern Orthodoxy practices only baptism by immersion and always has? Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy used to be the same church prior to 1054. If it is indeed true that Jesus intended an immersion only policy, then you need to use something other than baptism to support your claim that essential doctrines and practices were changed. What else do you have? In particular, you need to show that the primitive church held LDS style temple rites (eternal marriage, endowment, etc.) in order to make a case. Lacking this, I’m afraid your case is non-existent.

NS

NS,
I would really love to hear that the entire Catholic church would move to baptism by immersion, but not of infants in any case.

What else do I have?

1. Bishops were married in the New Testament church. (Yes, I know–so were deacons, but they were adults with a different function than LDS deacons.)
2. There were no prayers related to “saints”, and no images of such.
3. There was no special designation about Mary, the mother of Christ, in the New Testament. Christ and the Father were the single focus of worship, devotion, prayers, etc.
4. Stephen saw Christ on the right hand of the Father, which means he also saw the Father.
5. The word “tradition” had strong negative connotations as used by Christ, and for good reason.
6. Money was not involved in any ordinances or covenant-making or whatever a priesthood leader needed to do involving the members coming to them, other than for assisting the poor for which the money or items were given specifically for that single purpose.
7. Peter taught that Christ visited spirit prison, and the spirits there were taught the gospel.
8. There was no teaching that righteous people go to any such place or description as “Purgatory” before being qualified to go to “heaven.”
9. The Old Testament writings (that is, the writings that became compiled as that) were regarded as having prophecies yet to be fulfilled and very important.
10. There were living prophets during the New Testament times, including after Christ had ascended.

As far as a “case”, I have no need to make a “case”. I’m fine with you believing what you wish to believe. I’m not worried about your happiness in the hereafter, if you’re living a good life. Not in the least worried or concerned.

 

[greggy53]

Greggy,
I think the Protestants drew their understanding from the New Testament when they made changes to baptize by immersion and not baptize babies. But of course I realize you would disagree with that.

Many Protestants baptize infants as well.

I have a household. My youngest is twelve years old. The assumption that the word “household” was meant to include infants and toddlers, does not make sense either from reading the entire text of those passages or when considering what Christ taught Nicodemus about being “born again” and taught his disciples about a child being pure.

My son’s household includes a child of 3 and an 9 month old. When census takers come next year you ask them who should be included in the household. Obvioulsy “Household” includes everyone, infants and small children too. When Catholics baptize infants they are born again with water and the holy spirit. Threre is nothing in scripture to prohibit baptizing children. …Children are pure??? Doesn’t scripture say that ALL have sinned and fall short?

 

[greggy53]

NS,
It’s OK that you believe that baptism by immersion was not “official policy”. That would mean when Paul spoke/wrote comparing baptism to burial and a “new birth”, and when Christ taught Nicodemus about being “born again”, that they didn’t know what they were talking about and only you know the “official policy.” I simply disagree. I think Christ knew exactly what He was talking about, and Paul also. But you can certainly present the evidence when you explain to the Lord that baptism by immersion, which was meant to signify a covenant made with Him with your entire body becoming “reborn” and then becoming sanctified through the Holy Spirit changing the heart (i.e. being “born of the Spirit”)–was not “official policy” since it was never declared such in the Bible.

The Catholic Church teaches me that St Paul spoke of baptism as the new circumcision. Infants are circumcised, so now they are baptized as well. Your interpretation of Jesus conversation with Nicodemus is your interpretation, and neither you nor your church has the authority or guidance from the Holy Spirit to properly interpret scripture.

 

[ParkerD]

My son’s household includes a child of 3 and an 9 month old. When census takers come next year you ask them who should be included in the household. Obvioulsy “Household” includes everyone, infants and small children too. When Catholics baptize infants they are born again with water and the holy spirit. Threre is nothing in scripture to prohibit baptizing children. …Children are pure??? Doesn’t scripture say that ALL have sinned and fall short?

Greggy,
Christ said children are pure, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

As to the word household, here are relevant texts from the Bible:

Genesis 47:23 Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land.
24 And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones.

(Note the distinction about “little ones.”)

2 Samuel 15:16 And the king went forth, and all his household after him. And the king left ten women, which were concubines, to keep the house.

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
15 And 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 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

1 Corinthians 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

Romans 16:10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus’ household.
11 Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.

The meaning I draw from both the Old and the New Testaments is that the word “household” does not include a meaning that infants living in the family were considered part of the group that was being described when the word was used.

 

[greggy53]

To Parker D
There is absolutely nothing in any of the Bible quotes you posted concerning the definition of household to indicate that children are not included, or that baptizing children is prohibited, or even discouraged. Our Lords statement about children that you quoted is one reason why we Christians baptize children. From the one statement “Of such are the kingdom of Heaven” you are concluding that children are pure, and therefore without sin and perfect?? If that is true do they need a savior? Is this something that LDS folk teach or your own conclusion? Basic Christianity teaches that because Adam and Eve sinned all of their descendants are born with the taint of that same sin on their souls. This sin is cleansed through the waters and graces of baptism. Small children are not perfect. Ask any mother of a two year old. Infants and children are very selfish creatures (as the result of their fallen nature) They must be taught manners. They must be taught to share, not to steal. They must be taught to think of others, and not just of themselves. Human beings have to be taught to do what is right, it does not come naturally. All this is because of Adam and Eve’s sin.

 

[ParkerD]

To Parker D
There is absolutely nothing in any of the Bible quotes you posted concerning the definition of household to indicate that children are not included, or that baptizing children is prohibited, or even discouraged. Our Lords statement about children that you quoted is one reason why we Christians baptize children. From the one statement “Of such are the kingdom of Heaven” you are concluding that children are pure, and therefore without sin and perfect?? If that is true do they need a savior? Is this something that LDS folk teach or your own conclusion? Basic Christianity teaches that because Adam and Eve sinned all of their descendants are born with the taint of that same sin on their souls. This sin is cleansed through the waters and graces of baptism. Small children are not perfect. Ask any mother of a two year old. Infants and children are very selfish creatures (as the result of their fallen nature) They must be taught manners. They must be taught to share, not to steal. They must be taught to think of others, and not just of themselves. Human beings have to be taught to do what is right, it does not come naturally. All this is because of Adam and Eve’s sin.

Hi, Greggy,
I have eight children. When they were born, I saw purity in their eyes, not “sin”, nor did I consider when a two-year-old or a four-year-old had an issue of disobedience or wanting to “do their own thing,” that they were sinning in any sense of the word. They were “learning.” They were figuring out how to make decisions in life without a parent making every decision for them. They were figuring out how to use their bodies and how to use their minds.

Christ did suffer the atonement for adults and for little children. The fact that little children make what you seem to think are “mistakes” (sins?) is certainly covered by Christ’s atonement, with absolutely no need for baptism to absolve them of the learning process they go through as little babies and children.

Of course children need to be taught to do the right things in life, and make good choices. God expects parents to help them learn those things, and to teach them to love God but not to feel forced to do that–to do it out of love, and to feel loved by God.

We simply disagree about the age at which sin begins to “count” against someone, in that Christ’s atonement was for “sinners” to be enabled to repent and be forgiven, but little children are already covered by His loving atoning sacrifice. He knew about them, and forgave that growing process already. He loves them “as they are.” The repentance process is that a person asks for forgiveness from God when they realize they have sinned, and they make a covenant with Jesus Christ to change their ways. Babies can’t “make” a knowledgeable covenant. When they have grown and learned about covenant making, they can make a knowledgeable covenant at that time.

 

[Arandur]

To Parker D
There is absolutely nothing in any of the Bible quotes you posted concerning the definition of household to indicate that children are not included, or that baptizing children is prohibited, or even discouraged. Our Lords statement about children that you quoted is one reason why we Christians baptize children. From the one statement “Of such are the kingdom of Heaven” you are concluding that children are pure, and therefore without sin and perfect?? If that is true do they need a savior? Is this something that LDS folk teach or your own conclusion? Basic Christianity teaches that because Adam and Eve sinned all of their descendants are born with the taint of that same sin on their souls. This sin is cleansed through the waters and graces of baptism. Small children are not perfect. Ask any mother of a two year old. Infants and children are very selfish creatures (as the result of their fallen nature) They must be taught manners. They must be taught to share, not to steal. They must be taught to think of others, and not just of themselves. Human beings have to be taught to do what is right, it does not come naturally. All this is because of Adam and Eve’s sin.

Correct, but what is admirable about children, what makes them pure and what Jesus praises is not this selfishness that results from their fallen nature in the generation of Adam, but it is their inherent openness to love, their acceptance and yearning for the unconditional love of their parents–and, most especially, of God. A child’s soul is naturally accepting of God and His love, naturally trusting in the Father. That is what we need to emulate.

That is also what makes baptism so incredibly appropriate for them. A child’s soul freely and happily accepts the Lord when the Lord is offered because it has not been prevented from doing so (“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them”). A parent properly fulfills their role as a Christian, returning their greatest gift (their child) to God and asking God to make that child a part of His family like they are, through baptismal regeneration out of the generation of Adam and into the generation of Christ. The parents’ faith is transmitted to and sanctifies the child, and the child’s soul joyfully accepts such a gift from the parents and from God Himself in the Sacrament. Whether a child chooses to embrace or reject that gift later in life, the child’s pure beginnings freely welcomed in God’s Grace.

To deny children baptism is to deny them membership into God’s family. I cannot imagine doing that as a parent–it is truly a hateful thing to do to a child, to withhold from them the greatest and most important gift you know, to practically disown them from God’s family in this way. Further, to deny them baptism is to hinder them. Whereas we should be bringing them before the Lord, letting them come to Him and embrace Him and be enfolded in His embrace. Infant baptism is a truly beautiful thing, and denying it is a truly monstrous thing.

 

[greggy53]

Hi, Greggy,
We simply disagree about the age at which sin begins to “count” against someone, in that Christ’s atonement was for “sinners” to be enabled to repent and be forgiven, but little children are already covered by His loving atoning sacrifice. He knew about them, and forgave that growing process already. He loves them “as they are.” The repentance process is that a person asks for forgiveness from God when they realize they have sinned, and they make a covenant with Jesus Christ to change their ways. Babies can’t “make” a knowledgeable covenant. When they have grown and learned about covenant making, they can make a knowledgeable covenant at that time.

Our disagreement is far from simple. Where does it say in scripture that “little children are already covered.” , and that he forgave that growing process already."?? You have built a theology that is not based anywhere in the scriptures. The scriptures say that all have sinned, and fall short…You seem to like the Bible when it says what you like, but when the teaching gets difficult you make up your own version to suit what you want. New born infants are innocent for sure, but not perfect or pure. If they were they wouldn’t make mistakes or need a learning process at all.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
If you have had the impression that I do not follow the living prophet or do not agree with my leaders, then you have gotten a wrong impression. I am completely comfortable with the teachings of both the living prophet and my local leaders, and feel 100% assured that they follow the Holy Spirit also. There is no need for any point of disagreement with them. (Perhaps in Brigham Young’s day, I might have disagreed with certain ideas of his, but I don’t live in Brigham Young’s day so I am not dealing with that kind of an issue.)

I was not under that impression. I was pointing out that you DO follow them, in much the same way Catholics follow the Magisterium.

I have no need to be appealed to by “tradition”. As I had noted on another thread, the Savior used the word “tradition” with a negative connotation, as did Paul more times than not, and as did Peter. An appeal to “tradition” is not an effective appeal for me at all.

You just don’t understand tradition very well. You have it and follow it, and all Christians do, whether they acknowledge it or not. The difference is that Catholics acknowledge that God teaches and preserves and nurtures a community (all communities have traditions), He does this primarily in ways other than through texts (texts being aids written down at points to support and serve other purposes, but necessarily containing only a small portion of truth because of their limitations), and that texts themselves are generated out of tradition. And so we see that God’s guiding hand works through Tradition in a special way for the Church He has promised and united with Himself.

My personal revelation deals with how I live my daily life, and if there are questions regarding scriptural topics then I can gain an impression about those kinds of subjects and I trust those impressions; but those impressions are consistent with other scriptures and are consistent with the whole idea of the body of Christ getting to the point of really building Zion.

Oh, so you were equivocating before? If your personal revelations deal with how to live your daily life, and provide only impressions about general doctrinal truths, then they’re not the primary source of your knowledge of doctrinal truths. Instead, your knowledge of general doctrine comes primarily from outside of you, in a manner I suspect is very similar to Catholics. Which is why I find your accusations against Catholics disingenuous.

Arandur,
People are baptized by cutting a hole in the ice, even today in some parts of the world. There may be blankets or a fire nearby–not so difficult a challenge.

I think each person baptized would want it to be special for them personally, and not be considered that because there were “thousands” waiting in line the single pure ordinance for them was less important and should be rushed or not done the same way Jesus was baptized.

As I said, for a few people it is relatively easy, even in “primitive” areas. Though it is certainly easier now than in the past–something you seem to refuse to acknowledge, and which I think is an common fault of the newer sects, particularly those with recent modern origins, which have no perspective of the past and want to look at human experience through the luxury of Western richness and stability.

As for wanting things to be special for them personally, what a selfish thing. Those who do something for public recognition have received their reward. I think it would be truly wonderful and fitting the proper humility of baptism to be baptized with thousands!

And still, this desire you mention does not explain the logistical difficulties of baptizing thousands in a day, as the NT multiple times records.

 

[ParkerD]

Correct, but what is admirable about children, what makes them pure and what Jesus praises is not this selfishness that results from their fallen nature in the generation of Adam, but it is their inherent openness to love, their acceptance and yearning for the unconditional love of their parents–and, most especially, of God. A child’s soul is naturally accepting of God and His love, naturally trusting in the Father. That is what we need to emulate.

That is also what makes baptism so incredibly appropriate for them. A child’s soul freely and happily accepts the Lord when the Lord is offered because it has not been prevented from doing so (“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them”). A parent properly fulfills their role as a Christian, returning their greatest gift (their child) to God and asking God to make that child a part of His family like they are, through baptismal regeneration out of the generation of Adam and into the generation of Christ. The parents’ faith is transmitted to and sanctifies the child, and the child’s soul joyfully accepts such a gift from the parents and from God Himself in the Sacrament. Whether a child chooses to embrace or reject that gift later in life, the child’s pure beginnings freely welcomed in God’s Grace.

To deny children baptism is to deny them membership into God’s family. I cannot imagine doing that as a parent–it is truly a hateful thing to do to a child, to withhold from them the greatest and most important gift you know, to practically disown them from God’s family in this way. Further, to deny them baptism is to hinder them. Whereas we should be bringing them before the Lord, letting them come to Him and embrace Him and be enfolded in His embrace. Infant baptism is a truly beautiful thing, and denying it is a truly monstrous thing.

Arandur,
The last sentence here reinforces what I have written before about “fear-based theology”, but I realize you will have a problem with such a belief being described as fear-based. (What else, if not fear-based to tell a parent they have done a “monstrous thing”?)

We just see things completely differently as far as covenant-making, receiving the Holy Spirit and His influence, and certainly the idea of what baptism is for and parents’ role in the process of guiding a child toward making their own baptismal covenant with Jesus Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

Our disagreement is far from simple. Where does it say in scripture that “little children are already covered.” , and that he forgave that growing process already."?? You have built a theology that is not based anywhere in the scriptures. The scriptures say that all have sinned, and fall short…You seem to like the Bible when it says what you like, but when the teaching gets difficult you make up your own version to suit what you want. New born infants are innocent for sure, but not perfect or pure. If they were they wouldn’t make mistakes or need a learning process at all.

Greggy,
When Jesus said “for of such is the kingdom of heaven” He did not baptize that infant first. He said what He said with no ifs, ands, or buts about that child or any child. The theology of needing to make a knowledgeable covenant, a believing covenant, is throughout the New Testament.

 

[choy]

Choy,
I realize that you may think the word “apostasy” has a harsh connotation, but in my mind it means only “departure from the pure doctrinal truth and loss of authority given by God”.

If as you said, “all believers are in agreement that it can never happen” meaning that the “church” (meaning its members, the body of believers or the “bride”) "can never depart from the pure doctrinal truth at any point, then there would absolutely be no need for the word “heresy” or the word “heretical” within any of your religious writings, nor have been any execution of any “heretic” nor any burning of translations of the Bible nor any set of writings that even hint at there being a fear of people departing from the church, because as you say, “it can never happen.”

and by weeding out the heresies and the heretics, we have preserved the teachings of Jesus as handed down to the apostles and to the present day priests and bishops via apostolic succession

you’re right, apostasy does happen. but not in the large scale that the LDS or other restorationist groups claim. even if there is one faithful catholic that remains and is able to pass on the teachings, then apostasy of the church didn’t happen and the original teachings are in fact still inctact. even if a lot of catholics today fall away from the faith, don’t know their faith fully, or doesn’t follow everything because they find it too old fashioned for their tastes, the fact is all the teachings are the same today as they were 2000 years ago.

and Jesus will never let His mystical body vanish on earth. that is why he has sent people like St. Francis of Asisi to fix His church. because He will not let His church crumble to the ground.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
The last sentence here reinforces what I have written before about “fear-based theology”, but I realize you will have a problem with such a belief being described as fear-based. (What else, if not fear-based to tell a parent they have done a “monstrous thing”?)

False conclusion; non sequitur. Worshipping an idol is a “monstrous thing,” as are breaking any of the other Commandments, but it is not “fear-based” to teach those things or to mention the gravity of not following the Commandments. You just have a very prejudiced opinion about Catholics that you use to discount much of what they say or teach. You just dismiss it as “fear-based” without making a meaningful response.

We just see things completely differently as far as covenant-making, receiving the Holy Spirit and His influence, and certainly the idea of what baptism is for and parents’ role in the process of guiding a child toward making their own baptismal covenant with Jesus Christ.

Consider one of those main passages in question, Luke 18: 15-18. Note that verse 17 says “Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”
This is wholly within the context of what He was talking about, spoken right after He says that we must “Let the little children come” and “do not hinder them.”
Further, verse 18 is in the continuing context of salvation, “what must I do to be saved?”

Is it not, then, extremely clear that children CAN “accept the kingdom of God?” They are actually the very MODEL for how to do it! Against these of Jesus’ own words, how can you possibly make any case whatsoever that a child cannot make a covenant with God, cannot “accept” Him?

That is why I elaborated in the previous post about a child’s nature, about how they naturally accept and yearn for the unconditional love of parents–including their parent God the Father–and thus why to deny it to them is error. For parents to see their role as the “process of guiding a child toward making their own baptismal covenant with Jesus Christ” is in clear opposition to the superiority of a child’s acceptance of the God and would constitute holding them back, hindering them from it until a time when they are less child-like and less able to do it so perfectly! How is it not terrible to wait for a time when someone is less able to accept God, has more obstacles to it, through age and sin?

Greggy,
When Jesus said “for of such is the kingdom of heaven” He did not baptize that infant first.

Any number of reasons for that. Your conclusion is unsupported. Do you think every baptism was recorded in Scripture? We know that Christ did many things that were not recorded. Stopping to perform a ritual in this instance would not have been consistent with the narrative used here. There also may not have been water at hand. As well, we don’t have many records of Jesus baptizing. IIRC, the only one is right after His own baptism. Did He not baptize anyone else, then? He may not have, as he tasked many things to His disciples, but we don’t even have many records until after the Gospels and Pentecost of them doing that–for that’s when the Church was really fully instituted.

 

[greggy53]

Greggy,
When Jesus said “for of such is the kingdom of heaven” He did not baptize that infant first. He said what He said with no ifs, ands, or buts about that child or any child. The theology of needing to make a knowledgeable covenant, a believing covenant, is throughout the New Testament.

If I understand you correctly your theology of needing to make a “knowledgeable covenant”, means that we have to make a conscious decision for Christ in order to be saved. Children cannot make that commitment on their own, so they get a free pass (Which is not found in the scriptures.) But what about others who died before the time of Christ, or afterward without having heard the good news? Do they get a free pass too?
Or is it their tough luck because they didn’t die as children?
The Church teaches what the scriptures teach. And scriptures say that baptism is a necessary part of salvation. “Be baptized for the forgiveness of sins” It was Martin Luther I believe who first denied the sacramental nature of baptism, and that is where theory’s like yours got their start. The corruption of human nature in the garden of Eden is very fundamental to Christian beliefs, and the sacramental nature of baptism that helps to redeem us from that fall has been a teaching of the Christian Church for 2000 years

 

[ParkerD]

If I understand you correctly your theology of needing to make a “knowledgeable covenant”, means that we have to make a conscious decision for Christ in order to be saved. Children cannot make that commitment on their own, so they get a free pass (Which is not found in the scriptures.) But what about others who died before the time of Christ, or afterward without having heard the good news? Do they get a free pass too?
Or is it their tough luck because they didn’t die as children?The Church teaches what the scriptures teach. And scriptures say that baptism is a necessary part of salvation. “Be baptized for the forgiveness of sins” It was Martin Luther I believe who first denied the sacramental nature of baptism, and that is where theory’s like yours got their start. The corruption of human nature in the garden of Eden is very fundamental to Christian beliefs, and the sacramental nature of baptism that helps to redeem us from that fall has been a teaching of the Christian Church for 2000 years

Greggy,
I guess you haven’t been aware that LDS have the belief and practice of performing a “baptism for the dead” meaning that a person who was old enough to make a knowledgeable covenant but didn’t have the opportunity or the understanding to choose that, will have the full opportunity in the spirit world and their baptism will have been done for them on earth if they choose to receive it. There has been a recent thread about this topic. It addresses the very situation you noted here.

I think Eve made a necessary choice that she had been allowed to make in the garden of Eden, and was glad afterward that she had made that choice, despite having been tempted by the serpent to partake of the fruit. Adam was also glad they both made the choice they made, after they understood that the plan of salvation included their rescue from their sins through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ through their repentance and their covenant-making.

 

[greggy53]

Greggy,
I guess you haven’t been aware that LDS have the belief and practice of performing a “baptism for the dead” meaning that a person who was old enough to make a knowledgeable covenant but didn’t have the opportunity or the understanding to choose that, will have the full opportunity in the spirit world and their baptism will have been done for them on earth if they choose to receive it. There has been a recent thread about this topic. It addresses the very situation you noted here…

Baptism of the dead is not practiced in any Christian denomination that I know of. It is certainly not taught by the Church, and is not found in the scriptures.

I think Eve made a necessary choice that she had been allowed to make in the garden of Eden, and was glad afterward that she had made that choice, despite having been tempted by the serpent to partake of the fruit. Adam was also glad they both made the choice they made, after they understood that the plan of salvation included their rescue from their sins through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ through their repentance and their covenant-making.

Adam and Eve were certainly not happy about sinning, and being evicted from paradise. Scripture records this. Neither were they predestined to sin. They were free to choose Anybody that told you they were is in serious error. That is not Christian teaching by any stretch of the imagination.