Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[PRmerger]

Hi, Dokimas,

You know, sometimes ‘sleeping’ on an issue helps my brain come up with other approaches to a topic. I still do not know what “ST” is…so, I am going to have to ask you about that, but I did come up with another idea last night. Let me share the product of last night’s slumber …

ST is “Sacred Tradition”.

 

[jlhargus]

Firstly, I believe one of you said that you can add to cannon. that the church can add to the law of God… Hence those passages which says you cannot nor can anyone.

JL: The canon has been infallibly set and cannot be added to, even by the Church. You only know the bible IS the bible thru TRADITION. By the way how do you know for instance that Hebrews is inspired and should be in the bible?

you concider the aphorchapha sacred

JL: Actually they are called deuterocanonical. Did you know every one of those books are in the oldest extant complete bible codex’. It is from these translations are made from the original language. The original KJV 1611 contained those books, but were removed by 1639. The first bible printed on a printing press was a Catholic Bible with those books. All complete bibles since the canon was first officially listed in 382AD have those books, until the sixteen century, when Protestants removed them. Did you know the Amish still have those books in their bible, they do not consider them inspired, but edifying and good for reading. Which begs the question, why have them IN THE BIBLE instead of a separate book? The answer would be because they have always been in the bible.

 

[tqualey]

Thanks!

God bless

Tom

ST is “Sacred Tradition”.

 

[dyluck]

Tobit 12:8-9 is a great verse! Jesus refers to it in great detail on his Sermon on the Mount! (Matt 6).

I have no opinion on v.17 "But Raphael said to them: “No need to fear; you are safe. Thank God now and forever.” . One can have multiple viewpoints on this.

That is not Tobit 6:5-8

And dyluck, just so you know,*** it’s not considered honest*** to cut and paste something from another website without giving proper credit.

Did you even look up these verses before you cut and pasted from some bizarre website?

PR I truly and deeply appologize for taking a quote from Tobit out of someone elses site. Actually I realized after that that particular site is horrible as it really cuts down some very good teachers.

Anyway, I did find a good site (www.catholic.org) that has the whole catholic bible including Tobit and found these tidbits:

Chapter 6
8 He replied, 'You burn the fish’s heart and liver, and their smoke is used in the case of a man or woman plagued by a demon or evil spirit; any such affliction disappears for good, leaving no trace.
17 Then once you are in the bridal room, take the heart and liver of the fish and lay a little of it on the burning incense. The reek will rise,
18 the demon will smell it and flee, and there is no danger that he will ever be found near the girl again. Then, before you sleep together, first stand up, both of you, and pray. Ask the Lord of heaven to grant you his grace and protection.

Anyway, I believe we are getting nowhere on this.
The above verse clearly shows acts of Witchcraft linking to Godly people but im not going to persue this any further. I believe at the end of the day, even my reference to biblical “Test Everything.”. You normally believe the doctrine of 1 verse, then take my saying that you can’t just take 1 verse flip it on me then ignore it yourself. Then say “well where does it say directly to test scripture with scripture”. If you use this argument then you are contridicting your own belief then tell me in a round about way that I am a hippocrate. Perhaps I am but honestly you clearly do not want to listen to even an ounce of what I am saying.

Lets just get back to the topic about baptism at hand.

 

[jlhargus]

2 Timothy 2:15
15Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

JL: How do you know when you are accurately handling the word of truth? Are you yourself infallible. I can know I am accurately handling the word of truth, when I stay in line with the Church the pillar and ground of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15.

Deuteronomy 4:2 2"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

JL: So why do you have a bible with the ADDED New Testament?

Please don’t read into the next statement: but nowhere in the recognized old or new testemant is the Aprocripha quoted.

JL: Well that would eliminate some of the OT books in your bible also.

Catholics also do not concider these books as part of the core bible but an addition to the old testament. (one of the reasons they have a different name: deuterocanonical books?

JL: Deuterocanonical means second canon. The first canon are those books that everyone accepted without arguement. By your reasoning you need to take out of the NT Rev, Jude, 2&3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews as these are the NT deuterocanonical (second canon). Those books were also disputed as those of the OT.

(which was never part of the Hebrew old testament).

JL: There was never a SET Hebrew OT canon. If the CANON had been SET infallibly with the OT then we could not have ADDED the NT as canon. Just as we cannot ADD to the canon today. Ok I’m finished with off topic comments. We need to talk about infant baptism

 

[jlhargus]

PR I truly and deeply appologize for taking a quote from Tobit out of someone elses site. Actually I realized after that that particular site is horrible as it really cuts down some very good teachers.

Anyway, I did find a good site (www.catholic.org) that has the whole catholic bible including Tobit and found these tidbits:

Chapter 6
8 He replied, 'You burn the fish’s heart and liver, and their smoke is used in the case of a man or woman plagued by a demon or evil spirit; any such affliction disappears for good, leaving no trace.
17 Then once you are in the bridal room, take the heart and liver of the fish and lay a little of it on the burning incense. The reek will rise,
18 the demon will smell it and flee, and there is no danger that he will ever be found near the girl again. Then, before you sleep together, first stand up, both of you, and pray. Ask the Lord of heaven to grant you his grace and protection.

Anyway, I believe we are getting nowhere on this.
The above verse clearly shows acts of Witchcraft linking to Godly people but im not going to persue this any further. I believe at the end of the day, even my reference to biblical “Test Everything.”. You normally believe the doctrine of 1 verse, then take my saying that you can’t just take 1 verse flip it on me then ignore it yourself. Then say “well where does it say directly to test scripture with scripture”. If you use this argument then you are contridicting your own belief then tell me in a round about way that I am a hippocrate. Perhaps I am but honestly you clearly do not want to listen to even an ounce of what I am saying. Lets just get back to the topic about baptism at hand.

JL: Jesus took clay and spit to cure, is that witchcraft? Does that mean clay and spit of themselves can drive out demons? Now back to infant baptism.

Do you believe ALL infants are born clean or unclean?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dyluck,

We all make mistakes. For most of us, just recognizing we messed-up is a major accomplishment…

PR I truly and deeply appologize for taking a quote from Tobit out of someone elses site. Actually I realized after that that particular site is horrible as it really cuts down some very good teachers.

Good teachers are hard to find - best not to abuse them!

Anyway, I believe we are getting nowhere on this.

The above verse clearly shows acts of Witchcraft linking to Godly people but im not going to persue this any further. I believe at the end of the day, even my reference to biblical “Test Everything.”. You normally believe the doctrine of 1 verse, then take my saying that you can’t just take 1 verse flip it on me then ignore it yourself. Then say “well where does it say directly to test scripture with scripture”. If you use this argument then you are contridicting your own belief then tell me in a round about way that I am a hippocrate. Perhaps I am but honestly you clearly do not want to listen to even an ounce of what I am saying.

Lets just get back to the topic about baptism at hand.

Wooooooooooooooooow! Hold on there a minute, Dyluck. What kind of apology is this - start out good and then slam the recipient? That is not how things are properly done - anywhere.

If you want to engage in “Test Everything” you can start by ‘testing’ the material I have sent to you. Personally, I am not really knowledgeable on Tobit - in my view there is more then enough material in the NT that I have yet to scratch the surface on…so, for me, staying with the NT is what I like to do.

But, I’d go easy with that, “Witchcraft” name calling stuff. First of all, you are dealing with one of God’s special archangels, who just did not decide to come to earth to cook fish on his own. I am sure you would not be calling God’s angel a witch… would you? Secondly, let’s take a look at John 9:6-7

**6
When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva, and smeared the clay on his eyes,
7
and said to him, “Go wash 3 in the Pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed, and came back able to see. **

Now, here we have the same Christ Who multiplied loaves and fishes with a blessing, calmed the sea by a mild rebuke, cleansed lepars, raised the dead by simply syaing, “Arise”. His making clay with spital and then sending this blind man off on an errand represents a real change in how He did miracles.

You would not call the making of clay an act of ‘witchcraft’ would you? Seriously, while we can think that Christ did this to challenge the Pharisees because this cure took place on the Sabbath - think about this: just curing someone on the Sabbath was cause to upset the Jews. (Matt 11:5-6, 12:1-14, etc.) Chrst really did not have to make clay to get the negative attention of the Jews, did He? No.

So, I really don’t know why Christ did this. And, by the same stroke of ignorance on my part, I do not know why anyone was told to burn a fish heart and liver. But, this does not entitle me to describe something I do not know as an act of the Devil when the obvious source is God Himself! I am quite cofident that people have made clay with spital to try and cure an eye problem - but, there is no medical documentation that such a treatment is either safe or effective (to use FDA terminology for a drug) I am equally sure that buring fish organs has been tried - and with equally negative results - or else it would be all over the newspapers and Betty Crocker would have a recipe on how best to do this! The idea of 'Witchcraft" to me involves calling upon the Devil for power and using certain spells, rituals, incatantions, etc to bring about the desired effect. Well, this ancient “Fish Fry” falls short of that goal, eh?

Truly, I would no tread on this Book with name calling. It is not nice to ridicule the friends or acts of God.

Now, if you don’t want to read Tobit, fine. Just leave it alone. If nothing else, this will give you more time to prepare your response(s) to the posts I have given you that challenge the position you have taken.

Honestly, I am awaiting your response.

God bless

 

[rinnie]

I was not disagreeing with what you think the CC teaches. I was disagreeing with the teaching. I don’t remember the post so I’m not sure of the specifics.

Okay you disagree with what the Apostles taught and what Jesus taught. But what does that have to do with being taught the truth?

Do you see what I am saying. The Church has Authority to teach in the name of Jesus Christ. Now the church does not have the authority to make you accept the truth. Thats free will on your part.

And it is not what we THINK the CC teaches it is what we KNOW the CC teaches. DO you understand what I am saying?

 

[rinnie]

Now dyluck. This thread is going to be ending. So why don’ t you start a thread on the Eucharist and we can all explain the CC teaching on that.

Then start another on the Priest being able to forgive sins in Gods name.

Because we need to as you said, stick with one subject. Its too confusing to be doing so many and we will get pulled anyway.

So if its not baptism lets let this one drop.

I will look forward to your thread, and see you there

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rinnie,

Ooooooooooooh my goodness, Rinnie - you’re right!!

Now dyluck. This thread is going to be ending.

Here we are, running out of space/time … and we are spinning our wheels on this topic. No substitute for focus, eh? kpeople:

OK, Dyluck - let’s crank out those focused responses and see what you have to say! I’m still waiting…

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jlhargus,

Interesting how wandering off topic can be raised to an art form… I think we overlapped a bit on Jesus using spit and clay on the blind man. Between us - I think we have that matter pretty well sewn up, eh?

God bless

JL: Jesus took clay and spit to cure, is that witchcraft? Does that mean clay and spit of themselves can drive out demons? Now back to infant baptism.

Do you believe ALL infants are born clean or unclean?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

I have been meaning to ask you…

Ooooh! I’m having so much fun with this!

Were you wearing sandals?

Did you eat fish before you were baptized?

Did your beard drip water from the Jordan afterwards?

Did you celebrate by eating on the floor, reclining at a table like Jesus did?

Looks like your statistics are getting down to the 0.3% level now!

Is that the same as a **significance level **of p< 0.003?

Sorry… I could not resist…

 

[Dokimas]

Ooooh! I’m having so much fun with this!

Were you wearing sandals?

Did you eat fish before you were baptized?

Did your beard drip water from the Jordan afterwards?

Did you celebrate by eating on the floor, reclining at a table like Jesus did?

Looks like your statistics are getting down to the 0.3% level now!

I see you’re trying to get it down to match 0% of infant baptism.

I’m glad you are amused.

Jesus made the decision; so did I.

He is male; so am I.

He is wonderful; oops, I failed that one.

 

[Dokimas]

There is no Eccl 3:30. It only goes up to v 22.

There’s no Hezekiah 4:22 either.

In fact there’s not book called Hezekiah.

 

[Dokimas]

Hi, Dokimas,

While this appears to be a simply question, the answer is not easy. It really requires a serious foundation. But, since you asked … let’s get started.

Christ firmly established the need for each of us to be baptized. But, remember Christ spoke to the old man Nicodemus, and except for one notable instance, Christ only had dealings with adults. So, it is pretty easy to guess that only adults are involved in the process of needing baptism. But, this is really an assumption based on some - but, not all - of the facts.

So, since Adam and Eve freely chose to disobey God - they were punished, and that punishment has been passed on to each of us ("…sweat of your brow… pain in childbirth… and death") As Catholics, we believe that baptism cleanses us from the stain of Original Sin - but, the effects (some of them listed above) remain with each of us humans. Now, hang onto that as a concept…

As Catholics, we believe that Baptism makes us Children of God and Heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who are not baptized do not have this guarantee - and, what
God chooses to do with those folks is really God’s business.

To use an analogy… If an infant were all wrapped up, put in a basket, with a note pinned to the blanket and left on your doorstep (just bear with me on this … we will not involved Child Protective Serivces in this flight of imagination…) and you found it… it would not be an heir to your estate. If however, you adopt this infant - then it would be an heir. What would happen, however, if you did not adopt - but, told yourself you would adopt the child but, just never got around to it… but you did allow the infant to grow up under your roof? Well, not much - the child would look at the fine house - but, know it was not his. If you were to die … this child would inherit NOTHING. If you were to compare this baptism then why would anyone want to endanger their child’s eternal future by delaying baptism until some arbitrary time (such as wehn they can decide for themselves). The infant in my above analogy could not ask for any inheritance (he’s an infant and doesn’t know anything - except he needs to be cared for!) for he is not an heir.

Now…with all of this rambling of mine … the bottom line is that nowhere in the bible is there an age requirement for baptism. While confessing Christ as Lord prior to baptism is certainly valid for an adult - how do you handle an infant? In mere human society - infants are covered with insurnace and to be beneficiaries in the eyes of the state if both parents are deceased. we know that Paul baptized entire households - so, how can we logically and totally exclude infants and children from baptism where there is real room to include them.

There is nothing in the Bible that specifically includes infants or excludes infants and children from baptism. Recalling Christ’s words, “Suffer the little children to come to Me.” why would anyone really want to exclude them.

I hope this helps.

God bless

I like your insurance analogy. That’s why I believe children are ‘grandfathered’ in by the love and grace of God without baptism until they can deside for themselves.

Also, of the thousands that were baptized in the NT, only 5 households are mentioned where all were baptized. The odds are very good that those 5 households did not have children at the time of the baptism.

 

[Dokimas]

Did I deny that fact? Nope! Does it make other methods invalid? Nope! Jesus or the Apostles never condemned other methods. So you only half of the pie,we have all of it!

Nope! And what for? Isn’t once enough for God or is God forgetful now? Sorry,re-baptisms was not the norm in the early church. The seconding guessing of valid baptisms runs in circles among newbie churches.

Now why would I know the exact number? We are covering 2,000 years here,not 20 years.

WRONG! You are being very biased and perverting scripture and DENYING historical evidence from the early church.

Wrong again! There is a GOOD VERSE and SUFFICIENT,here read it:

***And I baptized also the **household *****of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. (1 Cor.1:16)/B] NKJV

The issue of infant baptism from scripture alone has been shown over and over. And oh guess what? Listen to what my New King James Study Bible has to say about baptism:

Occasionally the ENTIRE FAMILY of a NEW convert would be BAPTIZED,which may have signified the person’s desire to consecrate all (family) that he had to Christ.

Now…the term HOUSEHOLD is mentioned in Scripture and please do not make me give you definitions for the word: HOUSEHOLD. Burden of proof is on you to provide ancient sources clearly showing that the Jews EXCLUDED infants from the household or did not INCLUDE them as part of the household. Prove infants were excluded from the household?

Sorry,but you are very wrong and in strong denial.

Once again Dokimas,NO WHERE is infant baptism considered illicit or not permitted. NO WHERE! Scripture also does not state baptism is ONLY for adults and valid only if immersed…NO WHERE.

Of the thousands of baptisms in the NT, the odds that there are no young children in the 5 households mentioned in the NT as being baptized, in quite high.

Could you show me any baptism in the NT where some sort of repentance (change of mind/a turning) does NOT take place first?

 

[Dokimas]

One of the more interesting aspcts of St. Paul’s life (at least in my opinion) is how he could relate to different groups of people in order to win them over for Christ. Take a look at Philippians 3:5-7 (this will also give you a chance to compare different translations…)

5
Circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, in observance of the law a Pharisee,
6
in zeal I persecuted the church, in righteousness based on the law I was blameless.
7
(But) whatever gains I had, these I have come to consider a loss because of Christ.

Not to sound silly about this, but there was no ‘altar call’ back then for those who stood up for Moses and believed in the 10 Commandments (or, whatever an OT version of that would be). But, without stretching any facts, we can see that God obviously wanted infants brought into the ranks of the Chosen People - there was no delay until these infants could grow up and could make up their own minds. Considering what was being required (essentially, a surgical procedure without anesthesia) this was a tall order for one so young.

To my way of thinking, arguing other-wise is simply to argue for a tradition of men.

God bless

So, here is St. Paul telling his readers that he was special - even from birth - and, here are items he had absolutely no control over (born of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, of great parents who were observant Jews - and look what happens when new-born Saul is 8 days old - he is personally ushered into the role of being a Jew by being circmucised.) Now, none of his genetic or parental prestige would have accounted to him for much if he was not circumcised according to the Law.

I believe if we look closely, Paul was saying that in the flesh he was special, but that is not important to him because all those things he counted a dung in the light of knowing Jesus as we see later in the passage you quoted from

Phil 3:
8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 ¶ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,
11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Christ had a very soft spot in His Sacred Heart for children. It would just be inconsistent for Him to scold the Apostles for keeping children away from Him - yet condone the prohibition of infant baptism when, should that child die, they would not be considered a Child of God and an Heir to the Kingdom of Heaven. (As far as I am concerned, God will sort all this out on the Last Day… but our responsibility is do all we can so that more people go to Heaven. His Will be done!)

The very fact that Jesus had a soft spot in His Heart for children would tell me children are accepted without baptism. IMO, your argument here better suits the idea that babies don’t need baptism to be accepted.

As Jewish parents - they had the responsibility to bring their child up as a Jew from the very beginning. Would you expect Christian parents to have less responsibility? Combine this with there being NO BIBLICAL STATEMENT prohibiting infant baptism, the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) was left with a moral decision. Infants can’t stand up for Christ - they can’t even stand! But, there is no doubt that they have immortal souls. Following the precedent given by God to the Jews (infant circumcision) the move is to baptize infants. My parents had me baptized as an infant - and, I am very happy about that to this day!

If baptism in the NT takes the place of circumcism in the OT, then you may have a point. There’s no evidence I’ve seen in the NT that one takes the place of the other. Catholics here have shown their verses but I’m just not seeing it. Quite the opposite.

 

[Dokimas]

Okay you disagree with what the Apostles taught and what Jesus taught. But what does that have to do with being taught the truth?

Do you see what I am saying. The Church has Authority to teach in the name of Jesus Christ. Now the church does not have the authority to make you accept the truth. Thats free will on your part.

And it is not what we THINK the CC teaches it is what we KNOW the CC teaches. DO you understand what I am saying?

No one has the authority to teach what is not intended by God to be taught. People make mistakes. We ALL make mistakes. That includes ALL Christian churches, IMO.

 

[dyluck]

JL: Jesus took clay and spit to cure, is that witchcraft? Does that mean clay and spit of themselves can drive out demons? Now back to infant baptism.

Hi JL

I talked to a C friend of mine today who was in seminary to be a priest. He used the same arguement about the clay. I don’t believe that they are the same thing.
IMO (need to do some more study), I believe there was a significance to the clay due to the Sabbath / Pharasies / Jesus teaching a lesson more so then a ritual or a physical requirement to healing as we well know that Jesus doesn’t need to touch anyone, he can just declair it right?

Do you believe ALL infants are born clean or unclean?

So I believe that everyone is concieved and born in sin and in a state of hatred toward God

 

[rinnie]

No one has the authority to teach what is not intended by God to be taught. People make mistakes. We ALL make mistakes. That includes ALL Christian churches, IMO.

But we do not go by Your Opinion or even mine for that matter. Its God’s opinion!

And God PROMISED the CC the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church so no mistakes happen. So you are wrong. The Catholic Church does have the authority to teach and God send the advocate the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. So if you feel that no authority was given to the Apostles then you must not agree with Gods teaching then.

Jesus said ALL authority on heaven and earth was given to me. and I know give it to you. He was talking to the Apostles. I understand you reject this authority but we as Catholic believe what Jesus said.