Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[dianaiad]

I believe that RebeccaJ has provided a great response. In my case, I had agreed during our marriage to not baptize my son until he was older. This was a HUGE sacrafice that I was willing to make, in order to make the marriage work. However because of my Catholic beliefs and the fact that I would like to share those with my son, she has choosen to no longer be married to me and I do not have to make that HUGE sacrafice. I can proceed with the Holy Sacrament.

Yes, Rebecca stated that we require the permission of the parent who has legal custody. That means, if you have joint custody or have legal guardianship rights, your permission is required before the LDS church will baptise your child. Are you telling us here that your wife left you because of religion, and she left you with sole custody of the child and gave up all of her gaurdianship rights?

Please excuse me if that makes absolutely NO sense to me. Again, I have no right to demand explanations from you. I am simply saying that this looks problematic from where I sit…and that I am having major problems with the idea that a priest would allow you to go behind the back of your mother’s son in this manner.

By the way, I have a cousin who was in a similar situation…except that he was the Mormon and she was the Catholic. They had joint custody, and HE agreed not to have their child baptised without her permission. However, while the child was in her custody, she had him baptised as a Catholic.

When my cousin found this out, he took the situation to a judge, and now the mother has only supervised visiting rights.

In other words, and again noting that I have no right to demand explanations or to make assumptions about your personal situation, you might want to think about it. You are quite right; this is vital and deals with one’s faith. However, you might want to remember that your ex-wife (oh, wait…you weren’t married in the church so according to your faith, you weren’t actually married…) ALSO has deep religious beliefs.

I understand that LDS baptism, while vital, is something that can be rejected by the person baptised. It is done when the person has some idea of what it’s for. It can later be abjured and made…gone. However, I understand that a Catholic baptism, for Catholics, leaves an indelible mark upon the soul; it can never be undone, never be abjured, never be denied; it is done and done.

In other words, you are asking your ex-wife to sacrifice a WHOLE lot more than you are willing to sacrifice.

You will do what you will do, of course. I am simply amazed, however, (if the situation is as you claim it to be) that any priest would go along with it.

 

[dianaiad]

Now that does not sound right to me. My best friend is protestant and had her infant baptised:shrug:

That is probally my biggest problem with the protestatant faith it is never consistant.

You speak as if ‘protestant’ is one monolithic belief system. It’s not. There are many different Protestant faiths, rinnie—and each one is internally consistent with itself.

Well…at least as internally consistent as any other belief system.

 

[rinnie]

Ok, maybe you can clarify this quote

Originally Posted by rinnie
Um Richard once again we have the same problem. You are saying something completely different from what Paul is saying. Paul is telling us we are called to the new covenant. Then he is saying HE is Christ’s ambassador through whom God appeals. If you continue to 6:1-10 You can clearly see that Paul is not only exercising his ministry of reconciliation he is discribing how his ministry is exercised.

In 2Cor. 6:1-10 Paul continues to emphasise that this ministery is given to us

1We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

2(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

3Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed:

4But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,

5In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings;

6By pureness, by knowledge, by long suffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned,

7By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,

8By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true;

9As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, **we **live; as chastened, and not killed;

10As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

Richard again that scripture does not say that we are all Priests and called to be leaders of the CHurch and are given th power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sin.

Please read what it says.Alot of his letter is talking about his ministry and what he had to endure for the sake of Jesus and the Gospel. This second letter deals with 3 things. The crisis between Paul and the Corinthians, and the successful resolutions of the crisis.

Further directives and encouragement in regard to the collection for the church in Jerusalem.

And third the reason for his ministry, he reflects on how visitors from other Churchs who passed through Corinth missionaires who had many different ways. ANd how those differencs led to many comparisions.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

But you just said that a Jew did not need faith they were chosen by Christ and did not need faith

rinnie, you really need to start reading the posts. What I said was “If a man wanted to become a Jew he did so through faith.” In other words. If a man wanted to convert to Judaism he had to do it with a profession of faith. The Jewish people were **God’s chosen people. **They as a people were chosen to be the vehicle by which Christ (the manifestation of God’s plan of salvation) would enter the world. This was totally a God thing. It took no faith on the Jews part. Converting to Judaism was different.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

HUH?

Could you be a little more specific?

 

[Esdra]

Wow seems that I have missed a huge debate catholic vs protestant.

Well I was busy answering your last post (rinnie’s) to me. And then even the Computer began striking…

But here it is - you’re post, rinnie! :

Dear rinnie,

You kinda lost me there Esdra. Are you saying yes you must be Baptised to enter heaven, or no?

I said you MUST be baptised as a sign that you belong to Jesus. But I also said that children don’t need any repentance because they can’t sin and also wouldn’t understand what it means to give one’s live to Jesus. And of course infants can’t do that under no circumstances!

Also I never heard of a second Baptism. Again goes against scripture.

**Well the second baptism is just the baptism with fire (so this means the pouring of the Holy Ghost - confer: Acts 8,16 - so you don’t receive the Holy Ghost just by the baptise with water! - This is the 2nd baptism)
Well, and the thing is that some protestant churches don’t accept the catholic baptism because baptism only makes sense in their eyes if you personally have accepted Jesus as your Master and Saviour. And because of the infant baptism in the Catholic Church, but also in the Lutheran Evangelical Church, their baptism doesn’t count sort of. And so they became Anabaptists (means “again baptising”) or Baptists.
So second baptism now has two meanings in this case, sort of! **

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord One faith. ONE BAPTSIM. So your Churches teachings are very foreign to me my dear. kinda like English to you

**
Well, see above. Infant baptism is no real baptism according to the Baptist Churches.
I know that sounds strict… I am also more liberal, but somehow it makes sense to me: First you have to realise that you are a sinner, then you have to repent, then you have to ask Jesus to be your Lord and then you are baptised and then you receive the Holy Spirit. Well, Children just don’t need baptism because they have no idea what sin is. And you can’t do something you don’t know, can you? **

You may want to take a look at acts 16:15 Lydia and her ENTIRE household were baptised. I did have someone tell me once that there were not infants in the households in them days. I guess they kept them in the barn or something

Well this someone was somehow right. You don’t know what household meant in ancient Palestine…

Also if you read Matt 19:14 Let the Children come to me.

**I have already said something to that point: He didn’t baptise them but just blessed them. By the way read further: “14 Jesus said, Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.”
Verse 14b is important: “…for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” - so they are definitely no sinners, are they? They are without sins - have you ever heard about “innocent Children” - or “innocent as a child”? Sins are guilt sort of - but children don’t have them, they are innocent. So do you have to repent when you don’t have any sins? But sadly enough it’s true: When the child gets older (between 8 and 12) it will start to sin and then it will need repentance and if it does the Lord in his mercy will forgive it and it will become a son or daughter of God! **

Matt 18:14 It is not the will of God for Children to be damned. Would you not agree that our Dear Lord would never reject such a thing as the pouring of the Holy Spirit of Baptism.

Of course they are not damned. They come into heaven straight away - even without baptism. (see also above!)

I know you do not feel a child could be brought into this world without sin, but again scripture disagrees with you.

Sorry I don’t get that one…

Romans 5:18-19 ALL are born with Adams sin and need baptism.

**Uhm, which bible version do you use? In mine (NIV online) it says:

18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

**

To be perfectly honest: for me these 2 sentences don’t have anything to do with baptism but with the salvation through Jesus. Of course we all lived in disobedience and isolation from god, because of Adams sin, but everyone who takes Jesus as his Saviour will be righteous again before god! But you are right all need baptism as a sign that they belong to Jesus. But children up to, let’s say 12, don’t need it because they are already righteous before god. - See above!

I cannot accept your Church’s teaching when it is in complete contradiction with the word of God.
As I asked Richard maybe you can show me why would Paul compare circumcison to baptism if infants could not receive it? Does not make sense does it?

Is it really in complete contradiction with the word of God? Or is maybe the Caholic Church’s teaching in contradiction with the Holy Bible?
I agree with you to say that the circumcison is comparable with the baptism is ridiculous. See also Acts 15,1-21 (22-29)

Best wishes,
Esdra

PS: Puh that was a lot of work writing that all out in English!

PS2: Thank you, but no thank you. I have found out during my long bible studies that the protestant churches are “more right” than the Catholic church. I am feeling well in my Baptist community. I guess in summer I will convert and receive the Baptism.
So I definitely won’t go back to the RCC.
But what I really enjoy is debating with you and all the others here in the board. - All though it is very exhausting. see above!

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

If a man wanted to become a Jew he did so through faith.

In the NT the only was for a man to become a Christian is to choose to believe in Jesus. This is called faith. There is no other way Jn.14:6

There was no choice. Either be circumcised or cut off from the people.
Gen.17:14And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Baptism requires an expression of faith. Something of which an infant is not capable.

[SIGN][/SIGN]I d[SIGN]on’t know were you get this from. It’s not from the bible[/SIGN].

I think by OT you mean Old Testament, but what does SS mean?

I know what the bible means by fulfilled, but what do you mean?

We are saved from our sins by His blood. Baptism is the outward sign of our acceptance of that sacrifice. Like circumcision is the outward sign of God’s chosen people in the OT.

Sure it is, I just told you in the O.T. an infant was circ. in anticipation of the Jewish faith. Are you saying that an infant understood the Jewish faith now

In the N.T those born into Christian households can be baptised in anticipation of the Christian faith that it wll be raised in.

You do not see the same pattern here. What is different?

If one is an adult of course one must have faith before receiving the rite. But what I am saying is that a child does not have faith but can be given the rite of Baptism with knowledge of being raised in the faith. What is the difference being Circ. as a infant or being baptised as a Child. You still have not answered my question? Did baptism not replace Cir. but does it not have the same meaning?

I mean if a MAN wanted to be a Jew as I said its the same thing he would have to accpt the God of Israel. Same as if a Man wants to be a Christian he must accept Jesus Christ.

But an infant did not have to have faith to become Circ. So why would a infant have to have faith to be baptised. It makes no sense.

 

[Esdra]

RichardKastner:

We are saved from our sins by His blood. Baptism is the outward sign of our acceptance of that sacrifice. Like circumcision is the outward sign of God’s chosen people in the OT.

Actually that’s the point. This is what protestantism is about!
But, Richard, rinnie, be honest: is it really so important WHEN you are baptised that one can debate over hours? Most important is THAT you are baptised. Okay true, there is a difference in the importance for once soul life between RCC and Protestants concerning baptism…

I really think that the Catholic Church and much more the Orthodox Church has taken over a lot of rituals and other things concerning priesthood from the O.T.

I think that is not so good. In my opinion (and also in the opinion of most protestant churches) the N.T. is much more important. We should follow Christ’s teachings and those of the Apostles, not those of the Pharisees and so on.

Okay, i guess i am writing a lot of ******** now, it is very late (23.51!) and i want to go to bed now.

So, sorry for this maybe seneseless post.

Gn8 everyone!
Esdra

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Okay lets say I agree with you, which I of course do not. If the teachers are not infallible how can we believe in the teaching of okay lets say St Paul. Because please explain this scripture to me.

1 Thes 2:13 It says that it is Indeed THE WORD OF GOD. which the People HEARD from Paul. Now how can that be?

And why did Paul tell them to stand firm in where they were received by WORD OF MOUTH or by LETTER?

If you do not accept the teaching of the Apostles as submitting you the actual word of God then how do you get it?

Paul and all the writers of the bible Were ifallible only insofar as they preached the word of God. Paul alludes to this in Gal.1
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

He goes on

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

22And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

23But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

24And they glorified God in me.

This is not always the case as shown in Romans 7:15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

So, it is Christ working through His Spirit that makes a man infaallible. Without that we have “sin that dwelleth in me.”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard Kastner;6625495:

Easy Richard Paul explains that the death of our dear Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh brings forth the Risen Lord in the Holy Spirit.

Paul is talking about how the death of the body ( the flesh) gives us eternal life of the Soul (Spirit). Paul is explaining what Christ looks like in the old criteria (weakness death) according to the New (wisdom power life) Paul is speaking of a new order created in Christ by the new Covenant.

He is saying that by his death on the cross he died for us all, so that beings that we have died in Christ we can live in Christ with eternal life.

What scriptures are we talking about here?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard again that scripture does not say that we are all Priests and called to be leaders of the CHurch and are given th power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sin.

Nobody can forgive sins but God. Let’s go back to ch.5

17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Ok, please explain to me how this is not giving us the ministry of reconciliation and making all those who are Christians ambassadors of Christ.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Sure it is, I just told you in the O.T. an infant was circ. in anticipation of the Jewish faith. Are you saying that an infant understood the Jewish faith now

In the N.T those born into Christian households can be baptised in anticipation of the Christian faith that it wll be raised in.

You do not see the same pattern here. What is different?

If one is an adult of course one must have faith before receiving the rite. But what I am saying is that a child does not have faith but can be given the rite of Baptism with knowledge of being raised in the faith. What is the difference being Circ. as a infant or being baptised as a Child. You still have not answered my question? Did baptism not replace Cir. but does it not have the same meaning?

I mean if a MAN wanted to be a Jew as I said its the same thing he would have to accpt the God of Israel. Same as if a Man wants to be a Christian he must accept Jesus Christ.

But an infant did not have to have faith to become Circ. So why would a infant have to have faith to be baptised. It makes no sense.

I already answered this, but here it is again.
Ok, let’s look at these vs.
Col2
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

You will notice that Paul talks of two circumcisions here. The old testament circumcision is the circumcision done with hands. In Gen 12 we read 1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

It is God here who does the choosing. He chooses Abram and his descendants to be a blessing to the world. This blessing is of coarse to be the vehicle for God’s plan of salvation. Manifest in Jesus Christ. The outward sign of God’s selection of the Jews to His purpose was circumcision.

Gen17:10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Again God does the choosing and because He does the choosing. There is no faith involved.
The other circumcision is “the circumcision of Christ:” v.12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Now in the circumcision of the heart we do the choosing. We must choose to be born again. We must choose to become a Spiritual Jew. 28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Because salvation is of the Jews Jn.4:22

To which you answered

Huh?

Maybe you should read it again?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, Rebecca stated that we require the permission of the parent who has legal custody. That means, if you have joint custody or have legal guardianship rights, your permission is required before the LDS church will baptise your child. Are you telling us here that your wife left you because of religion, and she left you with sole custody of the child and gave up all of her gaurdianship rights?

For whatever reason, you have an assumption here that Catholics should follow LDS practice.

Catholics follow Catholic practice, which is, to baptize a child. The requirement for baptism is that the parent who is having the child baptized, promise to teach the child his Catholic faith.

However, you might want to remember that your ex-wife (oh, wait…you weren’t married in the church so according to your faith, you weren’t actually married…)

This is you, making stuff up. There has been nothing said of the marriage status in the Catholic Church.

In other words, you are asking your ex-wife to sacrifice a WHOLE lot more than you are willing to sacrifice.

I think the point is, he is done asking anything of his ex.

You will do what you will do, of course. I am simply amazed, however, (if the situation is as you claim it to be) that any priest would go along with it.

Of course a priest will baptize a child when a single, Catholic, parent requests it. And that single, Catholic, parent promises to teach him his Catholic faith. It would make no sense for a priest to deny a child the graces of a baptism.

 

[climer97007]

My answer would be why SHOULD a baby or infant be baptized? /QUOTE]

You need to understand what baptism is.

First consider circumcision. Circumcision is the means by which a Jewish male enters into the Jewish Community. An adult male wants to become Jewish? He is circumcised! Can an infant be circumcised? Of course. This is still the preferred age. Circumcision is only a forshadowing of Baptism.

Baptism perfects in reality what circumcision only forshadows in symbolism. Baptism accomplishes incorporation into the Christian community, incorporation into the very Body of Christ.

Baptism is not just a symbolism, rather it actually accomplishes what it symbolizes. The invisible effects of Baptism are not accomplished by the person pouring the water. It is God who makes us part of Himself. People are necessarily involved, by the command of God, to go out and Baptize, but, it is God who is doing the work of Baptism.

Why is this important? It is not our decision which makes Baptism happen. It is God’s decision that makes Baptism happen. This is why babies can be Baptized. It is not our ascent which makes us part of God, it is God who makes us part of God. What keeps us part of Him is our ongoing cooperation with God. This is why salvation is not gauranteed through Baptism. We have the ability to fall from grace and to separate ourselves from God, and we also have the ability, through our relationship with God, to obtain His grace and to live in His Love.

So, Baptism is effected by God, not by human understanding, not due to human comprehension, or due to mere human will alone. The human will to want or desire Baptism finds it’s source and origin in the Will of God. God wants everyone to be part of Him. However, not everyone agrees with God.

So, why interfere with the divine will of God, and refuse to baptize babies? To interfere with the will of God is, at it’s root, an act of human pride. It is saying that we come before God, or that our will comes before God’s will, or we are intentionally putting God’s mercy to the test, or we are intentionally depriving a child of the reality of God’s love, or we are simply showing our human ignorance of the most basic realities of God’s relationship with us and don’t know any better.

Gene

 

[Esdra]

Richard again that scripture does not say that we are all Priests and called to be leaders of the CHurch and are given th power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sin.

Dear rinnie,

I just wanted to give you a Bible-Verse where it CLEARLY says that we are all “priests” and have the power to forgive sins therefore:

1 Peter 2

4 As you come to him, the living Stone- rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-
5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood**, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For in Scripture it says:See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,
8 and,A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.They stumble because they disobey the message- which is also what they were destined for.
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
11 Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul.
12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

It is further important that Peter addresses his letter not to a “priest”, like Paul did (i.e. to Timothy), but to the "To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, " (cf. 1 Peter 1,1-2).

But in one point you are right: We can’t be all leaders. We do the work god has given us to do. As Paul writes: "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? " in 1 Cor. 12,29. Of course the answers are NO. If you are interested, read through the whole chapter 12 and 13.
BUT, and that’s the point, everyone can become “a leader” and, even more important, everyone is allowed to preach, although it is certainly an advantage, if you have visited a bible-school first…

Best wishes,
Esdra

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN]Nobody can forgive sins but God[/SIGN]. Let’s go back to ch.5

17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Ok, please explain to me how this is not giving us the ministry of reconciliation and making all those who are Christians ambassadors of Christ.

John 20:23 Jesus gives his APOSTLES the power to forgive sin. Do you believe that Jesus Christ has the power to forgive sin? If you do how can you reject the power he passed on to his Apostles who can also forgive sin in his Fathers name then?

Richard you either believe that Jesus had the power or you do not, and if you believe he indeed believe that he has the power then you must believe his words.

Why did he say to his Apostles What my Father has Given ME I NOW GIVE TO YOU? Do you not accept these words either?

 

[rinnie]

I already answered this, but here it is again.
Ok, let’s look at these vs.
Col2
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

You will notice that Paul talks of two circumcisions here. The old testament circumcision is the circumcision done with hands. In Gen 12 we read 1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

It is God here who does the choosing. He chooses Abram and his descendants to be a blessing to the world. This blessing is of coarse to be the vehicle for God’s plan of salvation. Manifest in Jesus Christ. The outward sign of God’s selection of the Jews to His purpose was circumcision.

Gen17:10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Again God does the choosing and because He does the choosing. There is no faith involved.
The other circumcision is “the circumcision of Christ:” v.12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Now in the circumcision of the heart we do the choosing. We must choose to be born again. We must choose to become a Spiritual Jew. 28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Because salvation is of the Jews Jn.4:22

To which you answered

Huh?

Maybe you should read it again?

Yes Huh? I say that alot to you don’t I Richard. Sorry because its not the scripture you quote its how you interpret it that boggles my mind.

Okay lets listen to what you are saying. You are saying to be baptised we must be of age to accept God right? Even though the word of God rather in SS or ST says no such thing. But lets say I agree with you. I still do not see the difference between being circumcised in the O.T or in the N.T. Do they not both have the same purpose? Yes or No?

Second of all God chooses everyone. Yes the Jews were the chosen people. But the Jews did not accept Jesus Christ. Well many of them. But yes many of the Jews did indeed accept Jesus.

But rather a child is baptised or cir. they still must learn the word of God and accept Christ in their heart and obey his commandments. IT is the same in the O.T and the N.T.

You say that circ is an outward sign so is Baptism!! What is the dfference. In the O.T they circ. themself outward in Baptism we circ. ourself to CHrist heart but its also an outward sign.

So again your whole theory here makes no sense to me.

Back to Col 2;11-12 Paul notes that circ. was REPLACED by Baptism. He is just explaining that WE as gentiles do not have to be CIr. that it is replaced by baptism.

Paul says BAPTISM is the circ.made WITHOUT hands. That is what Paul is trying to explain to them. What you are saying does not make sense to me.

Please show me ONE exampe in the N.T that shows an example of a child raised in a Christian home who are baptised only upon makeing a decision for Christ. Just ONE. Please can you do that for me.

You can’t because it is not in there. If so show me. It is ALWAYS ASSUMEd that the children of Christian homes are already Christians that have been baptised in the faith. Romans 6:3 If infants were only admitted to the Church after the age of reason it would be written, there are no such records.

 

[rinnie]

You speak as if ‘protestant’ is one monolithic belief system. It’s not. There are many different Protestant faiths, rinnie—and each one is internally consistent with itself.

Well…at least as internally consistent as any other belief system.

I agree that is why I cannot understand it. There is only ONE truth not many!

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

rinnie, you really need to start reading the posts. What I said was “[SIGN]If a man wanted to become a Jew he did so through faith.” In other words. If a man wanted to convert to Judaism he had to do it with a profession of faith. Th[/SIGN]e Jewish people were **God’s chosen people. **They as a people were chosen to be the vehicle by which Christ (the manifestation of God’s plan of salvation) would enter the world. This was totally a God thing. It took no faith on the Jews part. Converting to Judaism was different.

And I showed you it is the same today as Yesterday. If a Man wants to convert to Christian he must also do it with a profession of faith.

But again what you refuse to accept or understand is if a infant is brought up in the faith he is circumcised the same as an infant is baptised. and does not have to have faith to be brought into it. Again you refuse to accept this or comprehend what I am saying:shrug: It is also the same today as yesterday. The only difference is circ. has been replaced with baptism. Same meaning.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN]Paul and all the writers of the bible Were ifallible only insofar as they preached the word of God.[/SIGN] Paul alludes to this in Gal.1
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

He goes on

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

22And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

23But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

24And they glorified God in me.

This is not always the case as shown in Romans 7:15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

So, it is Christ working through His Spirit that makes a man infaallible. Without that we have “sin that dwelleth in me.”

Please disreguard my last post. I read this wrong. Bu still want to debate on this. Because it still goes back to the same thing.

That is not what you said before. You said there is no Infallible teacher but Jesus Christ. Now I see you are changing your tune. I am thankful for that.

I know that the Pope and bishops in communion with him are infalliable teachers. that is why I am Catholic. He has a promise given to him which I quoted to you that when he speaks to under the power of the Holy Spirit it is not his words but the words of God pouring out of him.

That is why no teaching giving under the Power of the Holy Spirit when the Pope or Bishops have spoken with this gift can or have ever been wrong. This is a gift they were promised by God. IT is indeed written in the bible which I showed you. That is why I cannot accept your teachings.

I asked you before Richard maybe you forgot. What is the foundation upon which all Christain truth can rest? You either refused to answer or do not know. See if you can find that answer for me in scripture. Its in there