Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[guanophore]

John 3:5

The interpretation which I have been consistently taught, as a Baptist–and it makes perfect sense–is this:

Being born of “water” refers to physical birth–not baptism. Makes sense scientifically (the water of the uterus and placenta) and also makes sense as in contrast to spiritual birth–especially in context with verse 6 and also with Christ telling Nicodemus that he “must be born again.”

I am sure it makes perfect sense to you, but it is a modern evangelical innovation that is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

For the Jews, natural birth had nothing to do with water. It is always about blood. That is why the mother had to offer a sacrifice for purification. No Jew had to purify themselves from “water”.

As scripture testifies, human birth is contrasted with spiritual in Jn. 1:

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

natural birth is described as related to blood, the will of the flesh, and the will of man. No “water” here.

I find this to be the most valid contextually.

Thisi s because you are looking at the passage in isolation from the rest of the NT passages on the new birth. The apostles taught that it occurred in water baptism.

Another protestant view of this verse (taken from the ESV study Bible) is this: John 3:3–6 This discussion of the need for spiritual rebirth further develops the earlier reference to the “children of God” who are “born of God” (1:12–13; cf. 8:39–58; 11:51–52). The phrase born of water and the Spirit in 3:5 refers to spiritual birth, which cleanses from sin and brings spiritual transformation and renewal. Water here does not refer to the water of physical birth, nor is it likely that it refers to baptism. The background is probably Ezek. 36:25–27, where God promises, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean. . . . And I will give you a new heart. . . . And I will put my Spirit within you.”

On the contrary, ti does refer to baptism, but it is indeed a reference back to Ezek. the clean water in which we are sprinkled is the water of baptism, which the Apostles also called “water of regeneration”, through which we are cleansed by the HS, and emerge with a clean conscience toward God.

 

[guanophore]

Ok, now I see you’re issue. Glad I know what I am defending.

First of all, I firmly believe in the sufficiency of scripture. You ask for scriptural support–so I shall give it to you: 2 Timothy 3:15-17, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, All of Psalm 119, Deut 4:2, Deut 12:32, Prov 30: 5-6, Revelation 22:18-19

None of these passages say what you are claiming.

I still don’t think you know what you are defending. It is an extrablbilical tradition that was invented during the Reformation.

I am fully persuaded… The Bible has always proved sufficient for His Church…

History demonstrates that this is false. you may be pursuaded of it, but that does not make it a true statement. Further, Scripture not only does NOT say this about itself, but it says the OPPOSITE!

God is sufficient, Christ is sufficient and His Word is sufficient.

Granted, but His Word is not confined to the Scritpure.

Do you remember what the foundation of the Church is?

I cannot agree with you.  Tradition--no. Biblical interpretation--yes. It is our right to study the Bible and interpret it.

Where, in scripture, does it say this? Where does it say you are to ignore the Apostolic instruction, and compose your own alternate viewpoint, based upon your private reading?

So-called “Major Doctrines” are determined not by tradition but by connection to the gospel and clarity in the scriptures. It’s much more personally based than mere “tradition”.

What you are saying is that Major Doctrines are determined by your opinion of how you understand what you are reading. Indeed, it is quite a personal tradition. That is why there are as many opinions of what it means as there are belly buttons!

the Bible is sufficient

This is an extrabiblical tradition invented during the Reformation.

If it were true, why would Jesus have established a Church? Why did He appoint pastors, teachers, prophets, and all the other gifts?

This is ultimately why I cannot understand why Roman Catholics suggest we need more than the scriptures—I can’t get enough of the wonder of the Scriptures as it is. (That was just merely free and personal)

Jesus decided that, by training and appointing Apostles and leaving His authority with the Church. Jesus’ Church is not “Roman”,and God’s commandments are not '“suggestions”.

Lol. Does it really need to? Did God not supply us with the mental capabilities of logic and reason?

Indeed He did, and men have used it to reason out a great splintering in the Body of Christ.

 The Bible is the sufficient *basis* for all things--for all godly living.  No--you will not find every single issue that comes up in life outlined in the Bible.

No. we will not find your premise either. THat is because it is an anti-scriptural concept.

If the bible were a sufficient basis, Jesus would have written books, rather than build a Church.

. That, my friend, is why the Word of God is sufficient–and it has never been truly proved otherwise–

It is impossible to prove anything to a person who refuses to look at the evidence.

 

[guanophore]

No, the verse does not come out say the scriptures are sufficient–but yet the verse is all-inclusive. Read it again–with verse 17:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work

The clarity is this: that the Bible is profitable and useful for everything–if so, why the need for something supplemental. This attests to Scripture’s own sufficiency.

All that to say, there were more verses I listed beside this one. And I will list another: Ps. 19:7-9

God bless

Indeed the Scriptures are useful and profitable. For what? Teachign, reproof, training in righeousness. Now, to whom are these duties of equipping the saints given?

11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, (Eph. 4.)

When scripture is used by those whom God has appointed, the teaching authorities that He has trained and commissioned, it is certainly profitable. The duty of equipping the saints is given to people, not writings, However, Holy. If scripture were sufficient, then Jesus was wasting all these gifts wouldn’t you say?

 

[guanophore]

And again I would have to say as I thought I made clear before–no doctrine clearly taught in the scripture is “okay” to disagree about. However, biblical interpretative differences on what is not clearly revealed (some consider this “minor doctrine”–but that is probably a misnomer/unfortunate semantic) is much less an issue, and is not worth separating over.

And yet, ecclesial communities continue to divide over them daily…

 

[PRmerger]

You know, I did go to Mass in Albuquerque! And guess what? Later in the day I listened to the Popes’ Mass in Cypress. It is exactly what you said! Same liturgy.

Uh huh. :yup:

And it’s the same liturgy that’s going on in Heaven! Albuquerque…Manila…Cypress…HEAVEN! We’re in good company, eh?

 

[rinnie]

To my understanding, the acceptance of Mary as immaculate and perpetual virgin has not always been a doctrine of the old church.

Also you are assuming, without biblical backing, that Jesus, the God of our salvation, must be also born from one without sin for him to be sinless… Why is it then that Mary declars Him her savior? Luke 1:47-50. There is no need for a savior if you are without sin. If she is without sin then she is not under the law.

Also the bible declairs that no-one is righteous not one: Romans 3:10, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.”…

She also had sex: Matthew 1:25 This is obvious in context. Although she was married, and sex is not a sin under marriage, she is neither a perpetual virgin.
Even she was awstruck at the fact that God chose her. God chose to bless her. This is a SOVERIGN act of God not some merit of a woman. Blessedness comes from God.

my two cents!

The only reason it was later defined as doctrine is because it was always believed by everyone. It was not official Church doctrine until it was challenged.

And Matt 1:25 You must read this is context with scripture. The greek word for until heos does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. In 2 Sam 6:23 we read Michal the daughter of Saul had not child until the day of her death. Heb 1:13 and 1 Tim 4:13 are similar examples. Anytime you are to interpret scripture we must consider what the author is trying to say. His intent is not to show what happened after the birth of Christ his intent is to explain before. It is the Virgin brith not later siblings that Matt is concerned with.

And I am not assuming anything. I am going by the teachings of the CC and the teachings of the CC nor I ever said that Mary did not need a Savior. If we did please show me? I said Mary was saved from sin at the moment of her conception. Now would you like to guess who Saved her?

And again do not assume anything I know that Jesus are Savior Was NOT born into original sin because his Mother was saved at the moment of her conception by God

Now if you are going to take scripture out of Context again then are you implying that scripture is saying Jesus had sin Because if I take that scripture out of Context like you and NO ONE is righteous

But please go back and read what that scripture means. If all have sinned what about little Children also, we are told they cannot be guilty of a sin until a certain age. So it must have meant original sin. Which I have told you Mary was saved from at the moment of her conception.

 

[Dokimas]

No Protestant on this forum–ever–has been able to provide me with a verse that lets us know what’s an “essential” and what’s a “non-essential” doctrine.

In fact, after being on this forum for many years I’ve seen that Protestants can’t even agree on what’s essential and what’s not, let alone how Scripture lets us know this.

Are you saying there are not essentials to be part of the Family of God? If you think there are no essentials that mean everyone gets to heaven. If you think all catholic doctrines are essentials, then people like me have no hope of Heaven unless I become as you are, a catholic.​

BTW, just because you don’t agree with the answers from some of us on essentials, doesn’t mean we are incorrect.

 

[Dokimas]

Didn’t I just read in the post above this one that it is none of your business, since you don’t go to Mass?

If you really want the ans. to this question, a visit to Mass is just the ticket! Everything in it will point to scripture. Or more accurately, everything in Scripture points to it, since the Mass came first, and the Scripture later.

Context, Guanophore, context. In one post I said ST on an issue is non of my business. In another post I was asking for someone who said the mass is in Revelation to show me. ST is onething, the Bible is another. One is not my business; the other is.

I hope I helped clear up you misunderstanding of my posts.​

I’ve been to masses and never once thought that anything I experience reminded me of the Book of Revelation.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying there are not essentials to be part of the Family of God? If you think there are no essentials that mean everyone gets to heaven. If you think all catholic doctrines are essentials, then people like me have no hope of Heaven unless I become as you are, a catholic.

As a Catholic I believe that there are “essentials” (or major and minor doctrines). How do I know what’s an essential doctrine or not? Because of the authority of the CC. The CC calls it the “hierarchy of truths”.

However, since you are not a Catholic how is it you know what’s an essential doctrine and what’s not, since the Bible does not tell us.​

BTW, just because you don’t agree with the answers from some of us on essentials, doesn’t mean we are incorrect.

So what do* you* think are the essentials, and how do you know?

 

[Renko]

These people I don’t consider Christians because they do not follow the Bible.

 

[Dokimas]

As a Catholic I believe that there are “essentials” (or major and minor doctrines). How do I know what’s an essential doctrine or not? Because of the authority of the CC. The CC calls it the “hierarchy of truths”.

However, since you are not a Catholic how is it you know what’s an essential doctrine and what’s not, since the Bible does not tell us.​

So what do* you* think are the essentials, and how do you know?

It seems quite clear from the Bible what the major doctrines for salvation are. I don’t have time not to go over them. I’m pretty sure we’ve done this before so I guess you want us to do this again for new viewers.

 

[PRmerger]

It seems quite clear from the Bible what the major doctrines for salvation are. I don’t have time not to go over them. I’m pretty sure we’ve done this before so I guess you want us to do this again for new viewers.

The exact OPPOSITE is true.

As I’ve said, I’ve been on this forum a long time and have asked this question many, many times. No Protestants can agree what the major doctrines are, based on Scripture alone.

Clearly, those denominations which have not departed from the teaching of the Apostles can cite major/minor doctrines, based on the Tradition of the CC, but not based on Scripture.) But no Protestant has ever been able to show us what verses tell us “this is a major doctrine” and “this is a minor doctrine.”

Nuh-uh. No way. Can’t be done. Hasn’t been done. You can’t do it either.

 

[rinnie]

Context, Guanophore, context. In one post I said ST on an issue is non of my business. In another post I was asking for someone who said the mass is in Revelation to show me. ST is onething, the Bible is another. One is not my business; the other is.

I hope I helped clear up you misunderstanding of my posts.​

I’ve been to masses and never once thought that anything I experience reminded me of the Book of Revelation.

Really! Nothing. Were you taking a nap:tsktsk: But surely not right of the bat. Like the first thing Sign of the Cross and Greeting. 1:3 14:13 16:15

Not EVEN THE EUCHARIST 15:7 and chapter 16

How did you miss this part. 19:9 And all of Chapter 9 Johns revelation of the marriage supper of the lamb. How could you miss them saying this. How could ANYONE MISS THIS. This is the LAMB OF GOD who takes away the sins of the world, Happy are those who are called to us table.

Holy Smokes

 

[rinnie]

It seems quite clear from the Bible what the major doctrines for salvation are. I don’t have time not to go over them. I’m pretty sure we’ve done this before so I guess you want us to do this again for new viewers.

I agree its quite clear. Stick with the teachings of the Early Fathers of the Church And do not follow false teachers for they will distort the word of God.

 

[LMC20608]

To choose to follow Christ is a life altering decisions. Baptism is when you choose this path, choose this renovation of your life. An infant cannot tell the difference between a baptism and bath. There is no guess work in the bible, if God had intended for unaware infants to be baptized he would have included that. Where the bible speaks we speak but where it is silent we do not put our personal thoughts in. (i.e. “What’s to say that there were no infants in the house?! It doesn’t say anywhere that there were no infants &/or children in the house”). Not to mention he would have not given us freedom of choice. God wants us to choose to follow him, not to do rituals by obligation but as a symbol of our free decision.

Not in one place does the bible tell of an infant or any person not capable of vocalizing their personal decisions on spirituality getting baptized.

 

[guanophore]

To choose to follow Christ is a life altering decisions. Baptism is when you choose this path, choose this renovation of your life.

Welcome to the forum LMC. Yes, this is true for adults. However, in the NT, Baptism replaces circumcision.

An infant cannot tell the difference between a baptism and bath.

I am sure that Jewish infants could not tell the difference between being painfully cut and being brought into the covenant of God, but there it is!

There is no guess work in the bible,

This is a good example of an extrabiblical (man made) tradition. It is commonly believed by Sola Scripturists, but is not found anywhere in scripture.

if God had intended for unaware infants to be baptized he would have included that.

And so He has!

Besides, it is presumption for us to think we know how aware an infant is of his Creator.

Where the bible speaks we speak but where it is silent we do not put our personal thoughts in.

This is another example of an extra-biblical (man made) tradition that is common among Sola Scripturists. The Scripture does not say this of itself, either.

(i.e. “What’s to say that there were no infants in the house?! It doesn’t say anywhere that there were no infants &/or children in the house”).

So, you say you don’t insert your personal thoughts, yet it is your personal thought that there were no infants in the households that were baptized?

Not to mention he would have not given us freedom of choice. God wants us to choose to follow him, not to do rituals by obligation but as a symbol of our free decision.

It seems strange that He would have pre-figured baptism with circumcision, if what you were saying were true.

However, it is yet another extrabiblical tradition that contradicts the scripture.

Not in one place does the bible tell of an infant or any person not capable of vocalizing their personal decisions on spirituality getting baptized.

I suppose just like those infants, including Jesus, who were circumcised without being able to vocalize? I bet they vocalized plenty when the knife cut in.

You have reached a false conclusion, based upon a number of false premises.

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying there are not essentials to be part of the Family of God?

Of course not. We are saying that they are defined by Apostolic Teaching. Those who are separated from it come up with all kinds of wild ideas.

• If you think all catholic doctrines are essentials, then people like me have no hope of Heaven unless I become as you are, a catholic.

It is certainly much safer to follow the instructions of the Apostles if we want to get to where they are. However, to the extent that our separated brethren retain the essentials as they were handed down to us, we have hope.

• BTW, just because you don’t agree with the answers from some of us on essentials, doesn’t mean we are incorrect.

This is true. What distinguishes is whether the answers come from what was handed down from the Apostles. The Christian faith is to be received from those to whom it was committed. It is not to be extracted from writings 2000 years after the face.

Context, Guanophore, context. In one post I said ST on an issue is non of my business.

Oh. Okay. I misunderstood the post then.

• In another post I was asking for someone who said the mass is in Revelation to show me. ST is onething, the Bible is another. One is not my business; the other is.

You are creating falst dichotomies. The Bible is the product of Sacred Tradition, and cannot be separated from it. When this is done, error results. One error is that people are unable to see the Mass in the book of Revelation.

I’ve been to masses and never once thought that anything I experience reminded me of the Book of Revelation.

I believe this. The Mass, like the vision in Revelation, is an experience that transports the participant outside of space and time, into the Divine Presence. It is quite possible to sit in Mass, and miss out on this. Sadly a great many persons calling themselves Catholic are not reminded of it either. It is a tragedy, more so for them, as they have received the Apostolic instruction, than for you, who are separated from it.

It seems quite clear from the Bible what the major doctrines for salvation are. I don’t have time not to go over them.

I am sure it seems clear to you, but if what you were saying were true, then we would not have so many sects, and even cults. Some can read it, and not see the Trinity. Some read it, and cannot see the hypostatic union.

Some read it, and cannot see that Jesus only founded one Church, and gave authority to His Apostles. who passed it on to their successors.

 

[Dokimas]

The exact OPPOSITE is true.

As I’ve said, I’ve been on this forum a long time and have asked this question many, many times. No Protestants can agree what the major doctrines are, based on Scripture alone.

Clearly, those denominations which have not departed from the teaching of the Apostles can cite major/minor doctrines, based on the Tradition of the CC, but not based on Scripture.) But no Protestant has ever been able to show us what verses tell us “this is a major doctrine” and “this is a minor doctrine.”

Nuh-uh. No way. Can’t be done. Hasn’t been done. You can’t do it either.

If salvation is a major goal (and I can’t imagine not wanting to be saved) then —

Acts 16:
30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

There’s a direct teaching on at least part of what’s involved for a person to be saved. Not believing on the Lord Jesus Christ results in not being saved. I’d say that’s major. You may ask, "where’s the words ‘this is a major doctrine or this is an essential doctrine?’ but if you’re honest with yourself, they are silly questions.

 

[Dokimas]

Really! Nothing. Were you taking a nap:tsktsk: But surely not right of the bat. Like the first thing Sign of the Cross and Greeting. 1:3 14:13 16:15

Not EVEN THE EUCHARIST 15:7 and chapter 16

How did you miss this part. 19:9 And all of Chapter 9 Johns revelation of the marriage supper of the lamb. How could you miss them saying this. How could ANYONE MISS THIS. This is the LAMB OF GOD who takes away the sins of the world, Happy are those who are called to us table.

Holy Smokes

Thank you. I see that part of the mass is taken from the Book of Revelation, verses picked out.

I couldn’t find in Rev 19:9 ‘happy are those who are called to us table.’

 

[Dokimas]

I agree its quite clear. Stick with the teachings of the Early Fathers of the Church And do not follow false teachers for they will distort the word of God.

I try to stick to the Bible and the Holy Spirit’s nudging. I’m sure you’re not saying they teach falsely.​

Maybe you could tell PR that you agree there are major doctrines in the Bible. She won’t hear it from any of us. Thanks.