Why did the gospel need to be restored?

[gazelam]

Certainly understand what you’re saying. But there are no hard and fast biblical verses pointing to these practices. As you said, it’s a form of tradition because of the LDS belief in continuing revelation (which is fair). However, if it’s because of tradition, then how can you reject infant baptism even though it’s not specifically mentioned in scripture? There are some verses that claim that “whole households” were baptized. Of course, Evangelicals and LDS would claim that it doesn’t specifically state infants - but if the history of the Church shows that this practice has been done, then why should it be considered a false teaching?

It’s a fair point that in the Bible there are no hard and fast verses regarding infant baptism. Please see my post #38 regarding my opinion as to why the baptism of “households” doesn’t mean that infants were baptized. To understand how LDS view issues such as these you need to know that LDS view doctrine through the prism of modern-day revelation. The Book of Mormon specifically condemns infant baptism. See lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8?lang=eng. Therefore, believing that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and seeing a modern divine source opposing infant baptism, and seeing no explicit verses in the Bible commanding infant baptism, and seeing the missing ingredients regarding infant baptism in the “households” verses, LDS conclude that infant baptism was forbidden anciently by the Apostles as it is today. I hope this helps…

 

[wmscott]

Former Mormon here. The short answer is the same answer given by all of the many restorationist movements, from Islam to Seventh-day Adventism: Somewhere along the way the original went off course. What these restorationist movements also have in common are prophetic or charismatic figures that supposedly have privileged information from God that makes their claims seem more legitimate. As a result, even if historical and manuscript evidence undermines the claims of these supposed reformation, believers can rest assured because their leader has a direct connection with God, and that trumps historical evidence.

In my own experience, as an undergraduate and then a graduate student in history and religious studies, the pile of things I had to do mental gymnastics around just to preserve my Mormon faith eventually became insurmountable. I studied Jewish temple theology and found that it looked nothing like the temple rites I had experienced in the LDS faith. I studied the early Church and found that it looked a lot more Orthodox/Catholic than it did Mormon.

Mormonism survives by being a moving target. It can overturn previous revelations, previous “truths” because it posits continuing prophetic revelation. Furthermore, they can appeal to gaps in the historical and archaeological records to survive criticisms, i.e. “we can’t know for sure what happened between 30 and 70 AD!” Eventually, though, there will be fewer gaps to appeal to.

Thanks for the response. It really sums it up completely and makes perfect sense. I guess there really is no need to go back to Scripture as it would be ignored or explained away by those who are restorationists with them having that direct pipe line and all. Thanks again.

 

[TOmNossor]

You are “confident”? The council taught that sin brings to hell, but it doesn’t specifically mention what happens to unbaptized infants. As far as we know, original sin casts one to hell. Interestingly enough, the quote you provided referred to “unequal pains,” making a very important distinction. There is not much more information. It certainly does not discuss what “differing pains” means. The Church is simply cautious on pronouncing itself further. Again, there is no specific discussion of Limbo here. St Thomas Aquinas himself had stated that God’s power to confer grace for the unborn can go beyond the power of the sacraments. So the teaching that it is left to God’s mercy makes perfect, logical sense.

Who dies with “original sin only?”
The only folks who die with “original sin only” are humans who die before they are accountable for their actions (Catholics generally think this is normally 7 years old). The text and the universal teaching of all Catholics from before the 19th or 20th century is clear. The Council of Carthage (not an EC), established and condemned the single historical thinker who believed differently about the fate of the unbaptized infant, Pelagius.
And Aquinas’s point was that perhaps there was something like Limbo where the unbaptized infants do not suffer. Aquinas’s point was not what the modern Catholic Church teaches concerning God is not constrained by His sacraments. Aquinas is saying that God can show mercy by denying the beatific vision to the unbaptized, but providing an existence where there is no suffering. There is no hope for the beatific vision for the unbaptized infant before the 19th/20th cent.

On the other hand, how do you square Brigham Young’s teachings on Adam-God with subsequent revelation of the LDS Church? How is it possible that the Prophet and Seer of God’s restored Church, who can never lead the Church astray, provide an incorrect doctrine?

It is easy to read LDS thought as consistent in this area as long as “not leading the church astray” is unequal to “possessing doctrinal infallibility.” I see no reason why I should adopt the view that a lack of doctrinal infallibility is leading the church astray and thus I do not believe this. LDS have never placed such emphasis upon doctrine or advocated doctrinal infallibility. More than this, LDS have not placed emphasis on doctrinal orthodox in general and have specifically and consistently denied infallibility.

Tom, this was a conditional prophecy. This is why Jonah was ordered to go to Nineveh and he fled, because he knew God was merciful.

*"He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said … That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.” *(Jonah 4:1-3)

Jonah didn’t make a false prophecy, it was that the conditions of the prophecy were changed. Nineveh repented, and therefore, God relented.
It’s not the same as the Adam-God doctrine.

I totally agree that this was a conditional prophesy, but that was not what Jonah the prophet understood. If the Bible is reliable, Jonah placed no conditions upon the prophecy when he delivered it. And if the Bible is reliable, Jonah had no concept of the conditional nature of the prophecy when he delivered it. And regardless of our thoughts on the “Bible as history,” the Bible as an inspired document must exist in a way to teach us something. That something in my opinion is that prophets are not infallible conduits of God’s words. They speak God’s words (that is what being a prophet means), and they might report better than I report my wife’s words despite my best efforts, but they are not perfect conduits.
I do not however claim it is equivalent merely that the Bible does not invite us to believe in infallible prophets. I do not know if Jonah’s human and/or sinful nature resulted in his misunderstanding God or if God intended Jonah to misunderstand. I just suggest that such misunderstandings can and do happen when only one person in the communication is perfect.
The only reason I offered Adam-God is because it is a pretty famous example of a teaching offered by Brigham Young that the church does not embrace and truth be told the church didn’t unconditionally embrace when he delivered it. Where error starts and truth ends in the doctrine I do not know, but I find it unlikely that Brigham Young was merely misunderstood.

Are you suggesting that these three reject the doctrine of Papal Supremacy, or are you simply stating that they believe that the doctrine developed. If so, so what?

I am not suggesting that they reject “Papal Supremacy.” I am suggesting that they believe the doctrine DEVELOPED.
More than this, I however am suggesting that Eno and Sullivan have weighed the available evidence and concluded that there is little support for the idea that after Peter some man in Rome evidenced that he thought he was the head of the church. AND that there is even less support for the idea that some man not in Rome thought that there was a Bishop of Rome at the head of the church.
I believe a FAITH FILLED reading of the history could acknowledge the place FAITH/HOPE has in the reading of history and conclude honestly that they think Clement of Rome knew he was Pope. I do not believe an appeal to impartiality with naked evidence can reasonably assert that this primacy was known by the Roman Church. And I do believe an appeal to impartiality with naked evidence can reasonably assert that the knowledge of this primacy was absent in the Roman and other churches. Such is my BIASED assessment of the evidence, but I of course am BIASED.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I’m not sure what you mean about St. Monica not baptizing her children because she didn’t want to or she didn’t think it was important? Her husband wouldn’t allow it. Are you aware of that?

I agree about the connection between circumcision and baptism.

Not only do I not “know” that, I am about 90%+ sure the historical record directly contradicts what you are suggesting.
Why do you believe St. Monica’s husband forbid infant baptism? What is your source? Is it just a guess based upon the fact that here husband was a pagan? Or do you have some other source of which I am not aware?
I think this situation is precisely as I suggested, it was very common to intentionally delay baptism not only for infants/youths, but for adults/converts too.
Charity, TOm

 

[truthseeker32]

When investigating baptism in the early Church, the important question is not how old people were when they got baptized, but whether the early Church declared that one had to be of a certain age to be baptized and, furthermore, what the purpose of baptism was in the early Church.

There is both evidence for adult and infant baptism in the early Church because there were competing views of what baptism is for. Some put off baptism until very late in life because, believing that it would cleanse them of all their sins, they thought it best to put it off in order to cleanse as many sins as possible. Others, believing that the most important aspect of baptism was to unite individuals to God’s saving body realized that the question of volition was of little importance. In this view, believing that a person must understand or consent to baptism is as silly as believing that one must understand or consent to being raised by their parents or receiving life saving medical treatment.

I was baptized as a Mormon when I was 8. I didn’t understand what I was doing, at least in any meaningful sense. I just knew that I was doing something I thought I was supposed to do, and that it would make my family happy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

When investigating baptism in the early Church, the important question is not how old people were when they got baptized, but whether the early Church declared that one had to be of a certain age to be baptized and, furthermore, what the purpose of baptism was in the early Church.

There is both evidence for adult and infant baptism in the early Church because there were competing views of what baptism is for. Some put off baptism until very late in life because, believing that it would cleanse them of all their sins, they thought it best to put it off in order to cleanse as many sins as possible. Others, believing that the most important aspect of baptism was to unite individuals to God’s saving body realized that the question of volition was of little importance. In this view, believing that a person must understand or consent to baptism is as silly as believing that one must understand or consent to being raised by their parents or receiving life saving medical treatment.

I was baptized as a Mormon when I was 8. I didn’t understand what I was doing, at least in any meaningful sense. I just knew that I was doing something I thought I was supposed to do, and that it would make my family happy.

Agreed and well said. There is no evidence that baptism is denied based on age.

 

[wmscott]

Agreed and well said. There is no evidence that baptism is denied based on age.

Agreed and to say there is no evidence is to ignore these scriptural passages:

**Mk 10:14 **- let children come; to such belongs the kingdom.
**Lk 18:15 **- people were bringing even infants to him.
**Col 2:11-12 **- baptism has replaced circumcision.
**Acts 16:31 **- believe in Lord Jesus you & house will be saved.
**Acts 16:15 **- she was baptized, with all her household
Acts 16:33 - he and all his family were baptized at once.
**1Cor 1:16 **- I baptized the household of Stephanas

 

[susanlo]

Certainly understand what you’re saying. But there are no hard and fast biblical verses pointing to these practices. As you said, it’s a form of tradition because of the LDS belief in continuing revelation (which is fair). However, if it’s because of tradition, then how can you reject infant baptism even though it’s not specifically mentioned in scripture? There are some verses that claim that “whole households” were baptized. Of course, Evangelicals and LDS would claim that it doesn’t specifically state infants - but if the history of the Church shows that this practice has been done, then why should it be considered a false teaching?

I agree that Scripture doesn’t explicitly state that infant baptism should be done or shouldn’t be done. There are a lot of Bible verses that allude to believer’s baptism which has no strict numerical age.
Acts 2:41 “Those** who accepted **his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.”
This doesn’t say that those who accepted his message along with their infants and toddlers were baptized.

Acts 16:14-15 – “One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira, named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. ‘If you consider me a believer in the Lord,’ she said, ‘come and stay at my house.’ And she persuaded us.”
This woman, being a dealer in cloth, probably wasn’t a mother of an infant. Households were large and multi-family. I wonder what her household was like? It doesn’t say the entire household was baptized. Were all of them? Were there infants?

Acts 16:30-34 – “He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God–he and his whole household.”
This was clearly a household of believers.

Acts 18:8 – “Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized."
Another household of believers.

1 Corinthians 1:16 – “(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)”
This doesn’t say who was in the household and it doesn’t say the ENTIRE household was baptized. In 1 Corinthians 16 it states that Stephanas household devoted themselves to the service of the Lord’s people. I don’t know who this all included.

Much of the early Christian writings speak of different steps one must take to be baptized including a confession of faith, renouncing the devil and such that an infant couldn’t take part in. There is no mention of a separate protocol for infants. (The only document that does this is the Apostolic Tradition which is questioned as to the exact dating and authenticity).

Origen does speak of infant baptism in some of his homilies and ties that to his version of Original Sin and Leviticus 12 and Luke 2.

Tertullian in the beginning of the 3rd century speaks against baptism of “little children.” I am not sure about the original language and whether this is referring to infants or to 7 and 8 year old little children.
“the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.
For why is it necessary–if (baptism itself) is not so necessary–that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfill their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the **innocent period of life **hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine!
Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred–in whom the ground of temptation is prepared,”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian21.html

It seems that there were definitely different understanding of baptism and appropriate ages even from the beginning.

 

[wmscott]

I agree that Scripture doesn’t explicitly state that infant baptism should be done or shouldn’t be done. There are a lot of Bible verses that allude to believer’s baptism which has no strict numerical age.
Acts 2:41 “Those** who accepted **his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.”
This doesn’t say that those who accepted his message along with their infants and toddlers were baptized.

Acts 16:14-15 – “One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira, named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. ‘If you consider me a believer in the Lord,’ she said, ‘come and stay at my house.’ And she persuaded us.”
This woman, being a dealer in cloth, probably wasn’t a mother of an infant. Households were large and multi-family. I wonder what her household was like? It doesn’t say the entire household was baptized. Were all of them? Were there infants?

Acts 16:30-34 – “He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God–he and his whole household.”
This was clearly a household of believers.

Acts 18:8 – “Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized."
Another household of believers.

1 Corinthians 1:16 – “(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)”
This doesn’t say who was in the household and it doesn’t say the ENTIRE household was baptized. In 1 Corinthians 16 it states that Stephanas household devoted themselves to the service of the Lord’s people. I don’t know who this all included.

Much of the early Christian writings speak of different steps one must take to be baptized including a confession of faith, renouncing the devil and such that an infant couldn’t take part in. There is no mention of a separate protocol for infants. (The only document that does this is the Apostolic Tradition which is questioned as to the exact dating and authenticity).

Origen does speak of infant baptism in some of his homilies and ties that to his version of Original Sin and Leviticus 12 and Luke 2.

Tertullian in the beginning of the 3rd century speaks against baptism of “little children.” I am not sure about the original language and whether this is referring to infants or to 7 and 8 year old little children.
“the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.
For why is it necessary–if (baptism itself) is not so necessary–that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfill their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the **innocent period of life **hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine!
Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred–in whom the ground of temptation is prepared,”

It seems that there were definitely different understanding of baptism and appropriate ages even from the beginning.

So do you believe in the Holy Trinity? If so ,Scripture doesn’t explicitly state It, however if you are a Christian you believe it. Just because it does not state it word for word and verbatim doesn’t mean it is not so.

 

[susanlo]

So do you believe in the Holy Trinity? If so ,Scripture doesn’t explicitly state It, however if you are a Christian you believe it. Just because it does not state it word for word and verbatim doesn’t mean it is not so.

The word “T-R-I-N-I-T-Y” is not in the Bible. The concept is imbedded throughout. A few examples:

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the** Spirit of God** was hovering over the waters.
Colossians 1:15 **The Son **is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him"
Genesis1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image…
All 3 were present at creation

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “**I am **who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
John 18:6 “When Jesus said, “**I am **he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.”
Why did the fall to the ground? Did Jesus say he was “I Am?” That was what God told to Moses and he was stating he was God. I understand from those who know Hebrew and Greek better than I do, that this statement is significant, although in English it doesn’t seem so.

John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth."
3 distinct entities working for the same purpose

The examples could go on and on, but I do think the triune nature of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are very clear in the Bible.

 

[susanlo]

So do you believe in the Holy Trinity? If so ,Scripture doesn’t explicitly state It, however if you are a Christian you believe it. Just because it does not state it word for word and verbatim doesn’t mean it is not so.

I wanted to add another quote about when Jesus claimed to be “I am.”

John 8 “58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”
They were violent because he was declaring to be God.
I think Jesus as God and the son of God is quite clear in Scripture, regardless of the terminology we may use.

 

[wmscott]

The word “T-R-I-N-I-T-Y” is not in the Bible. The concept is imbedded throughout. A few examples:

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the** Spirit of God** was hovering over the waters.
Colossians 1:15 **The Son **is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him"
Genesis1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image…
All 3 were present at creation

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “**I am **who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
John 18:6 “When Jesus said, “**I am **he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.”
Why did the fall to the ground? Did Jesus say he was “I Am?” That was what God told to Moses and he was stating he was God. I understand from those who know Hebrew and Greek better than I do, that this statement is significant, although in English it doesn’t seem so.

John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth."
3 distinct entities working for the same purpose

The examples could go on and on, but I do think the triune nature of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are very clear in the Bible.

But you set the premise “I agree that Scripture doesn’t explicitly state that infant baptism should be done or shouldn’t be done”. So to me you are saying that it “HAS” to explicitly state it to be a truth. The example of the Trinity is the opposite of your premise. SO again using another of your premises …The concept of infant baptism is embedded in the following:

Mk 10:14 - let children come; to such belongs the kingdom.
Lk 18:15 - people were bringing even infants to him.
Col 2:11-12 - baptism has replaced circumcision.
Acts 16:31 - believe in Lord Jesus you & house will be saved.
Acts 16:15 - she was baptized, with all her household
Acts 16:33 - he and all his family were baptized at once.
1Cor 1:16 - I baptized the household of Stephanas

Just because Scripture did not explicitly say that infants were baptized doesn’t mean it did not happen. Are we to assume that there were no infants present? so I ask, at what age does one get Baptized? 10, 12, 13, or 20? and where does it explicitly say that in Scripture?

 

[susanlo]

But you set the premise “I agree that Scripture doesn’t explicitly state that infant baptism should be done or shouldn’t be done”. So to me you are saying that it “HAS” to explicitly state it to be a truth. The example of the Trinity is the opposite of your premise. SO again using another of your premises …The concept of infant baptism is embedded in the following:

Mk 10:14 - let children come; to such belongs the kingdom.
Lk 18:15 - people were bringing even infants to him.
Col 2:11-12 - baptism has replaced circumcision.
Acts 16:31 - believe in Lord Jesus you & house will be saved.
Acts 16:15 - she was baptized, with all her household
Acts 16:33 - he and all his family were baptized at once.
1Cor 1:16 - I baptized the household of Stephanas

Just because Scripture did not explicitly say that infants were baptized doesn’t mean it did not happen. Are we to assume that there were no infants present? so I ask, at what age does one get Baptized? 10, 12, 13, or 20? and where does it explicitly say that in Scripture?

I believe that the triune nature of God is explicit in the Bible, whether one chooses to use the word trinity or not. There are many more examples in the Bible that could be given to support this concept.

I don’t think that the Bible commands to baptize infants, nor is there a commandment to not baptize infants. There is no age restriction given for baptism or receiving Eucharist. That is why we see different ideas in some of the writings in the early centuries too.

None of these verses you listed prove that infant baptism was done. There is no evidence that infants were present and many household references state explicitly that all in the household believed. The reference in Colossians to circumcision is speaking of a metaphorical circumcision. Many verses prove that believers were baptized. No verses prove that infants were baptized. No verses forbid baptism below a certain age.

 

[wmscott]

I believe that the triune nature of God is explicit in the Bible, whether one chooses to use the word trinity or not. There are many more examples in the Bible that could be given to support this concept.

I don’t think that the Bible commands to baptize infants, nor is there a commandment to not baptize infants. There is no age restriction given for baptism or receiving Eucharist. That is why we see different ideas in some of the writings in the early centuries too.

None of these verses you listed prove that infant baptism was done. There is no evidence that infants were present and many household references state explicitly that all in the household believed. The reference in Colossians to circumcision is speaking of a metaphorical circumcision. Many verses prove that believers were baptized. No verses prove that infants were baptized. No verses forbid baptism below a certain age.

That’s just it, you are putting forth just your opinions. The “I believe” and “I don’t think” statements is exactly the problem. You are basing this on your own personal interpretation. So on what basis or authority do you come up with the primes that infants were not baptized other than what you believe.

Taken From CA

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added,** “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him”** (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

 

[susanlo]

That’s just it, you are putting forth just your opinions. The “I believe” and “I don’t think” statements is exactly the problem. You are basing this on your own personal interpretation. So on what basis or authority do you come up with the primes that infants were not baptized other than what you believe.

Yes, there is a difference in beliefs in regards to authority. I don’t think I said that I am proving infants weren’t baptized in Bible times. There just isn’t explicit proof that they were.

Taken From CA

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

If this was the teaching since the NT era, then Origen and Ambrose weren’t aware because they seem to have a different understanding of original sin. I think the current concept of original sin wasn’t finalized until Augustine. Origen’s “Homilies on Luke” and Ambrose’s “On the Mysteries” offer different understandings than the current Catholic belief.

On the Mysteries Chapter 6 - 32. “Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism.”
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added,** “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him”** (2:39).

…Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16).

Yes, Paul was baptized by Ananias. I am not sure how this is relevant.

These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Other verses like Acts 16:31 state that belief is what brings salvation. There have been other discussions on here as to whether unbaptized babies and miscarried babies who have not been baptized can be saved. I don’t think the Catholic Church has a formal teaching on this.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Who dies with “original sin only?”
The only folks who die with “original sin only” are humans who die before they are accountable for their actions (Catholics generally think this is normally 7 years old). The text and the universal teaching of all Catholics from before the 19th or 20th century is clear.
And Aquinas’s point was that perhaps there was something like Limbo where the unbaptized infants do not suffer. Aquinas’s point was not what the modern Catholic Church teaches concerning God is not constrained by His sacraments. Aquinas is saying that God can show mercy by denying the beatific vision to the unbaptized, but providing an existence where there is no suffering. There is no hope for the beatific vision for the unbaptized infant before the 19th/20th cent.

Well the council in general was with regards to refuting Pelagianism, which claimed that people had a hand in their own salvation and essentially denied the role of original sin. The council(s) (if we’re talking about both Carthage and Florence), were intended to vigorously reject Pelagian ideas, not to specifically reference infant baptism.

As to St Thomas Aquinas, he states that infants would be in some sort of state where while they’d be denied the Beatific Vision, they’d have no suffering. That would be consistent with the idea of “differing pains” that we previously discussed. He also, though, leaves open the doors of hope by stating that God is not bound by the sacraments, suggesting there might be an avenue to salvation that is unknown for us. Why not? According to Catholic theology, did not God provide Mary with the means of salvation that is somewhat different from the rest of humanity’s? You and I, for instance, would be saved through our faith in Christ and our commitment to the Church’s sacraments (if we’re Catholics), while Mary was saved in obedience by the Immaculate Conception.

I should also make a point to state that the Church did not state that all unbaptized infants will go to heaven, but instead said:

***“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18)”

---

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

That doesn’t appear to be a break from tradition to me.

It is easy to read LDS thought as consistent in this area as long as “not leading the church astray” is unequal to “possessing doctrinal infallibility.” I see no reason why I should adopt the view that a lack of doctrinal infallibility is leading the church astray and thus I do not believe this. LDS have never placed such emphasis upon doctrine or advocated doctrinal infallibility. More than this, LDS have not placed emphasis on doctrinal orthodox in general and have specifically and consistently denied infallibility.

What’s the point of having a prophet at all to lead the Church with continuing revelation if he can utter false doctrines? Again, the Mormon prophet isn’t the same as the Catholic pope - the latter is a man who occupies an office, but is not considered a prophet, and therefore is susceptible to personal and private failings and heretical beliefs.

The LDS main website seems to imply that the prophet is “always trustworthy.” A bit of a contradiction, don’t you think?
"We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38)."
lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

. That something in my opinion is that prophets are not infallible conduits of God’s words. They speak God’s words (that is what being a prophet means), and they might report better than I report my wife’s words despite my best efforts, but they are not perfect conduits.
I do not however claim it is equivalent merely that the Bible does not invite us to believe in infallible prophets. I do not know if Jonah’s human and/or sinful nature resulted in his misunderstanding God or if God intended Jonah to misunderstand. I just suggest that such misunderstandings can and do happen when only one person in the communication is perfect.

There is no misunderstanding on Jonah. Jonah commented pretty clearly: he fled to Tarshish because he knew that the Lord would spare Nineveh and have them repent. That didn’t make Jonah’s prophecy any less true. Had Jonah gone out and said instead that “God wants you to worship the Assyrian gods” to the Israelites, then that would probably automatically lose him his title as prophet.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The only reason I offered Adam-God is because it is a pretty famous example of a teaching offered by Brigham Young that the church does not embrace and truth be told the church didn’t unconditionally embrace when he delivered it. Where error starts and truth ends in the doctrine I do not know, but I find it unlikely that Brigham Young was merely misunderstood.

My objection here is that Brigham Young taught it as a doctrine. I can accept that the Quorum of the 12 didn’t entirely accept it, but Young himself sure seemed to think the teaching was binding on the whole Church. I think in modern times, it appears that the LDS Church has adopted a more cautious, dare I say Catholic vision when it comes to the prophet of the Church. They no longer categorically see everything he says as divinely inspired, and if I’m correct (please correct me if I’m wrong), nowadays a revelation has to be formally approved by the Quorum to be considered binding. But again, in Young’s case, pious Mormons adopted a belief that was later essentially ruled to be in conflict with LDS beliefs.

I believe a FAITH FILLED reading of the history could acknowledge the place FAITH/HOPE has in the reading of history and conclude honestly that they think Clement of Rome knew he was Pope.

Charity, TOm

Well here we can only agree to disagree. I’ve struggled with the question of Papal Supremacy for a long time as I was researching the ancient Church. In my research (and no offense to the Orthodox out there , I love your liturgy), I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox perception of the papacy was incorrect, and that a primacy of “honor” was really a primacy in fact. I had no reason to believe in it - in fact, believing in the Catholic Church and the primacy of the Pope goes against everything I was taught to believe as a son of a pastor in a Pentecostal church. Curiosity - were you raised a Catholic and later converted to LDS?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

It’s a fair point that in the Bible there are no hard and fast verses regarding infant baptism. Please see my post #38 regarding my opinion as to why the baptism of “households” doesn’t mean that infants were baptized. To understand how LDS view issues such as these you need to know that LDS view doctrine through the prism of modern-day revelation. The Book of Mormon specifically condemns infant baptism. See lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8?lang=eng. Therefore, believing that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and seeing a modern divine source opposing infant baptism, and seeing no explicit verses in the Bible commanding infant baptism, and seeing the missing ingredients regarding infant baptism in the “households” verses, LDS conclude that infant baptism was forbidden anciently by the Apostles as it is today. I hope this helps…

Right but my main point is that your objection to infant baptism isn’t based exclusively on the Bible, but on extra-biblical sources (e.g., modern revelation) a well. I’m just suggesting that the Catholic Church (and other churches that believe in infant baptism) doesn’t justify infant baptism based on the Bible alone. You can’t criticize infant baptism because it’s not in the Bible when you use extra-biblical sources yourself to build your doctrine.

 

[vsedriver]

I may not have this right but I understand that a miracle is happening with transubstantiation within each Catholic Eucharist?

Just interesting to recall that Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine.

Yes, a miracle happens, the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. The appearance or ‘accidents’ of bread and wine but the reality is that it is not bread and wine.

 

[vsedriver]

Infants are too young to rejoice.

John leaped with Joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, pregnant with Jesus was greeted by her kinswoman.

Also, the household of Stephanas was also baptized (1 Corinthians 1:16). 1 Corinthians 16:15 goes on to say “I urge you, brothers—you know that the household of Stephanas is the firstfruits of Achaia and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the holy ones”.

Infants are just a tad young to devote themselves to the service of others.

baptism replaces circumcision. infants were circumcised. Baptism saves by the washing away of sin. Babies still have original sin. Those who have no personal sins don’t have anything to repent so it isn’t necessary to have something to repent of to be baptised.

Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism

Doesn’t allowing three different methods amount to three different baptisms?

they are not 3 different methods as they have exactly what the scripture requires you are to be baptised with ‘living water’ that is water that is moving. So whether the water moves when you are getting dunked or the water moves because it is poured over your head it is the same method. Just a different style.

Do not Catholics believe that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is found fully in both the species of the wine and the bread? And isn’t that why a Catholic meets his or her communion obligation by receiving either the bread or the wine?

yes, once the wine and bread are transubstantiated the wine and the bread are pure Jesus. You can’t eat just a bit of Jesus you get the whole being.