Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[Richard_Kastner]

For those who deny infant baptism, the burden of proof is upon you to show that in all of the verses listed there were no infants in all of those households and families.

There is never a burden of proof to show a negative. There is no mention of babies in those families. It is your burden to prove there were.

Jesus Christ said in Matt 19:14, “Let the little children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me.”
He also said in John 3:5, “…unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”
How are they to come to Him unless they are Baptized?
Those who say not to Baptize infants clearly have a Biblical conflict here, and they risk the salvation of the souls of their children…

Can you help with your interpretation of these verse,Thank You

When Jesus said “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” He was not talking about baptism. He was saying that we (adults) should teach our children about Jesus, so that when they are old enough to understand that baptism is the outward expression of our faith in Him and what He has done for us, they will be ready to take that step. As for Jn.3:5 notice it says “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

 

[BILL_PICK53]

That is pretty sad that they don’t. I have a 7 year old niece who has not been baptized yet. Her older sister however (17yrs old), was baptized Catholic as an infant and I’m her Godmother. Her mother, my sister, left the church right after she baptized her daughter (my niece & Goddaughter).

They say that infants cannot speak for themselves. But that does not hold water according to scripture.

Here the centurion has faith and with his faith the centurion’s servant is healed;
Mt 8:5-13 The Faith of a Centurion
5 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him,
6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.
7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.
8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.
9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.
11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,
12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Here the head of the household is the only one that needed to have faith and the whole household is baptized;
Acts 16:30-34 The Philippian Jailer Converted
30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.
Not only that, 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 there’s no exuse not to baptize infants.

Cathloic have had it right for 2000 years and the other have had it wrong for about 500 years

 

[Nicea325]

There is never a burden of proof to show a negative. There is no mention of babies in those families. It is your burden to prove there were.

It is not a burden at all. Tell me what part of the term househhold you do not grasp? Can a household include infants? Yep! On the contrary,it is your burden to prove ‘children’ had to make an intellectaul decision or ‘reason’ to accept Jesus.

No where does Scripture explicitly say babies were baptized nor does it forbid infant baptism either.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

It is not a burden at all. Tell me what part of the term househhold you do not grasp? Can a household include infants? Yep! On the contrary,it is your burden to prove ‘children’ had to make an intellectaul decision or ‘reason’ to accept Jesus.

Sure households can and do include infants (not children, I would consider a seven year old a child and capable of understanding his or her commitment to Jesus) I think scripture is clear that baptism is an outward sign of our commitment to the Lord and therefore outside the comprehension of an infant.

Acts8:26And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

27And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

**37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. **

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

No where does Scripture explicitly say babies were baptized nor does it forbid infant baptism either.

Considering the above passage, while it does not explicitly say that infants cannot be baptised. It does give the requirements for baptism, which is a faith in Jesus as the son of God a concept that an infant is incapable of grasping. It’s interesting that in your post you make no comment on my reply to Jn. 3:5

As for Jn.3:5 notice it says “Except a **man **be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

 

[guanophore]

There is never a burden of proof to show a negative. There is no mention of babies in those families. It is your burden to prove there were.

I am 'fraid you have it backwards, Richard. Culturally and historically, families always include babies. There is no evidence anywhere that babies should be excluded. Especially when we consider that circumcision is the shadow of initiation into the covenant, and the circumcision of Christ is baptistm.

When Jesus said “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” He was not talking about baptism.

What scripture do you use to support this assertion?

Why would the Jews initiate their children into the Old Covenant through circumcision but not into the New Covenant with the Circumcision made without hands?

He was saying that we (adults) should teach our children about Jesus, so that when they are old enough to understand that baptism is the outward expression of our faith in Him and what He has done for us, they will be ready to take that step.

This is a modern American Evangelical innovation that cannot be found any where in the Church history or documents.

Scripture no where describes baptism as an "outward sing of our faith in Him… This is an extrabiblical tradition - a tradition of men.

As for Jn.3:5 notice it says “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

So, adult women are excluded? That is quite a stretch.

 

[guanophore]

**I would consider **

a seven year old a child and capable of understanding his or her commitment to Jesus)

And can you explain to us why what you “consider” is of more value than what we have received from the Apostles?

I think scripture is clear that baptism is an outward sign of our commitment to the Lord and therefore outside the comprehension of an infant.

The examples given in scripture describe adult converts to the Church. Infants are not required to “convert”, anymore than the infants of the Jews were required to “convert” before they were circumcised. All the Apostles were Jews,a nd understood this without saying.

Acts8:26 , they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

**37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. **

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

This has been the unchangning teaching of the Church from that day, until this. Such a procedure is always used with adult converts. This same church, the one that produced the NT, nas also always baptized infants.

Considering the above passage, while it does not explicitly say that infants cannot be baptised.

This is the trouble that one falls into when one does not do what the Eunuch did,and seek instruction from those appointed by Christ. One cannot derive a theology from one scriputre, or a handful of them. Doctrine is received from those to whom it was committed, not extrapolated from the pages in separation from those who have authority to teach it.

It does give the requirements for baptism, which is a faith in Jesus as the son of God

This is certainly the requirement for adults who are converting.

 

[rinnie]

Sure households can and do include infants (not children, I would consider a seven year old a child and capable of understanding his or her commitment to Jesus) I think scripture is clear that baptism is an outward sign of our commitment to the Lord and therefore outside the comprehension of an infant.

Acts8:26And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

27And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

**37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. **

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Considering the above passage, while it does not explicitly say that infants cannot be baptised. It does give the requirements for baptism, which is a faith in Jesus as the son of God a concept that an infant is incapable of grasping. It’s interesting that in your post you make no comment on my reply to Jn. 3:5

As for Jn.3:5 notice it says “Except a **man **be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Tell me Richard, Just curious here. You quoted the scripture that says unless MAN be … HE cannot enter heaven. Okay lets say we play this game your way. So scripture does say Man and since we are going to throw out SS and only go by what is written where are we at here???

Because if I take that quote by exactly what it says I as a women cannot enter heaven correct? Or lets take it the other way since I am a women I don’t have to be baptised???
Do you kinda see my point here? How can I go with written Scripture EXACTLY as its quoted and just throw out Tradition. Where would we be??? Just something you need to think about. And I believe if you reach deep in your heart and think about this you can see how it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the word of God without the living teaching CHURCH!!

So if I go by exactly what scripture says could I not turn it around and make it say what I want it to say instead of what God intended it to say? So I as a women will choose to say that women do not have to be baptised to enter heaven. So now we have a problem, what do we do, do we find another piece of scripture and contradict scripture and argue so I can prove my absurd point? See what I am saying.

But yet it goes on and on everyday. People who refuse to be taught the word of God in the light of written scripture and oral teachings to learn and understand the true meaning.

There can only be one truth Richard, not whatever works for you, or I. God never said MANY truths he said ONE truth!!

 

[rinnie]

There is never a burden of proof to show a negative. There is no mention of babies in those families. It is your burden to prove there were.

When Jesus said “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” He was not talking about baptism. He was saying that we (adults) should teach our children about Jesus, so that when they are old enough to understand that baptism is the outward expression of our faith in Him and what He has done for us, they will be ready to take that step. As for Jn.3:5 notice it says “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Again Richard that is what YOU said that this scripture says. But the Church that has not only ORAL teaching and WRITTEN teachings disagrees with you.

Now you just said that Baptism is not for little Children, then tell me Richard why did Jesus say the kingdom of heaven is for SUCH?

So again what happens to the Children they also do not need to be baptised correct? Only Man right, Children and women are excluded??

Do you see the problem here? Who is correct you or the Church who Jesus said will guide you to all truth? According to the Bible it says that you are to have the power of the Holy Spirit passed to you by the laying of hands. We call that Holy Orders. Do you see that Jesus had a reason for that. This laying of hands is something for all to see. Now where is your authority to teach without this? Because does the bible or does it not say that we all have different gifts? I do not see where the bible says we are all called to be Priests. My bible says we are all called to do different things.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Tell me Richard, Just curious here. You quoted the scripture that says unless MAN be … HE cannot enter heaven. Okay lets say we play this game your way. So scripture does say Man and since we are going to throw out SS and only go by what is written where are we at here???

Because if I take that quote by exactly what it says I as a women cannot enter heaven correct? Or lets take it the other way since I am a women I don’t have to be baptised???
Do you kinda see my point here? How can I go with written Scripture EXACTLY as its quoted and just throw out Tradition. Where would we be??? Just something you need to think about. And I believe if you reach deep in your heart and think about this you can see how it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the word of God without the living teaching CHURCH!!

So if I go by exactly what scripture says could I not turn it around and make it say what I want it to say instead of what God intended it to say? So I as a women will choose to say that women do not have to be baptised to enter heaven. So now we have a problem, what do we do, do we find another piece of scripture and contradict scripture and argue so I can prove my absurd point? See what I am saying.

But yet it goes on and on everyday. People who refuse to be taught the word of God in the light of written scripture and oral teachings to learn and understand the true meaning.

There can only be one truth Richard, not whatever works for you, or I. God never said MANY truths he said ONE truth!!

I’m not sure what your point is with all this. Here is Jn.3:5 again 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Are you saying that this verse is wrong and that Jesus did not say this? Because if you are not (and I don’t believe you are) then don’t you think it would be a good idea instead of throwing the verse out altogether to try and find out exactly what He does mean. After all these are the words of Jesus our Lord and Savior. He always said what He meant and always meant what He said. IMO the misunderstanding is in the word “man”. Now we know that baptism or the outward sign of our faith in Christ is extended to all humans who are capable of understanding #1) that they are sinners #2) that they are in need of a Savior and #3) that Jesus fullfills that need. This would of coarse include women. So the obvious answer to this minor dilema is that the word man is not refering to exclusively the male gender, but is used as a generic term to denote a member of the human race or mankind. This would account for the inclusion of women, however the word man refers to and adult and therefore excludes infants.

 

[paulp1002]

First off to be honest, I didn’t read the entire thread; but I thought I would share my story.

I married a Mormon wife, and she is opposed to infant baptisms because she feels it is blasphemy. It was a struggle that we both faced. In October we welcomed a perfect angel boy into the world. I talked to the Monsignor in my Diocese, because I felt that I was an not following the Sacraments and I was worried if something were to happen. Since we were married, I could not have the baby baptized because we would need my wife’s permission, which she was unwilling to do.

He ensured me that our Lord is loving, and that he understands that the baby cannot be baptized because of the situation and that He would not hold judgement against my child if anything were to happen; because God loves all children.

Since then, my wife has left me (because of my Catholic Faith and because I wish to teach my Son my Catholic beliefs.) We are now seperated and headed toward civil divorce (we didn’t marry in the Catholic church.) I have since been scheduled for the baptism class with intentions to have my son baptized within the next couple months .

I was willing to compromise my son’s baptizm to make the marriage work, but since I no longer have to compromise this Holy Sacrament, I having my son baptized. This is something that I would have never thought was possible a month ago.

The way I look at it, is that our Lord works in mysterious ways, and with His guidance He will lead us down the right path, even it the path is rocky and not what we thought was right. We need to learn not to question His guidance.

 

[rinnie]

I’m not sure what your point is with all this. Here is Jn.3:5 again 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Are you saying that this verse is wrong and that Jesus did not say this? Because if you are not (and I don’t believe you are) then don’t you think it would be a good idea instead of throwing the verse out altogether to try and find out exactly what He does mean. After all these are the words of Jesus our Lord and Savior. He always said what He meant and always meant what He said. IMO the misunderstanding is in the word “man”. Now we know that baptism or the outward sign of our faith in Christ is extended to all humans who are capable of understanding #1) that they are sinners #2) that they are in need of a Savior and #3) that Jesus fullfills that need. This would of coarse include women. So the obvious answer to this minor dilema is that the word man is not refering to exclusively the male gender, but is used as a generic term to denote a member of the human race or mankind. This would account for the inclusion of women, however the word man refers to and adult and therefore excludes infants.

Thats my point I am trying to stress to you Richard. Of course Jesus always meant what he said and always said what he meant. But you cannot take it upon yourself to intrepret scripture. You have been doing it according to what you read and how YOU think it should be. IF someone would want to argue they could say Jesus said MAN, of course I know what Jesus meant. But I am showing you how people can pick scripture apart to make it say what they want it to say, instead of what it says. Which is exactly what you are trying to do!

If I were to argue the point Jesus said MAN not Woman. Do you see what I am saying, Of course I would be wrong according to the teachings of the Church. I know what the Church teaches ALL must be baptised. But if I were to choose to argue my point Scripture does indeed state MAN. That is what I am trying to show you that you are doing when you make the statements about baptism. You are doing just that!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Again Richard that is what YOU said that this scripture says. But the Church that has not only ORAL teaching and WRITTEN teachings disagrees with you.

Now you just said that Baptism is not for little Children, then tell me Richard why did Jesus say the kingdom of heaven is for SUCH?

So again what happens to the Children they also do not need to be baptised correct? Only Man right, Children and women are excluded??

You know, when you are correcting me for my textual sins you really should read the scriptures first. It gives you a little more credability when you actually quote what the vs. say. Especially when you appear to have taken on yourself to be the spokesperson for your church which as you say “But the Church that has not only ORAL teaching and WRITTEN teachings disagrees with you.”
Here’s these quotes from the synoptics

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:14
But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Luke 18:16
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Notice that in all three Jesus does not say that the kingdom is for such. What He does say is “for of such is the kingdom of God.” Then in Mark and Luke He goes on to say
Mark10:15Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Well, what does it mean to recieve the kingdom of God. I typed in kingdom of God in my bible search and I got vs. like the ones below not once did they refer to infants.
Matt6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Mark 1:15
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Jesus says Matthew 18:3
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus apparently is saying that we have to repent become pure and trust in God as little children. I know the CC says that infants have original sin and must be purified of it but this does not appear to be the case. Jesus doesn’t tell us to baptise the children first before they can come unto Him, but He does say that we need to be as them.

Do you see the problem here? Who is correct you or the Church who Jesus said will guide you to all truth?

Again, if you are going to be the CC’s spokesperson you really should start reading your bible.
John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

According to the Bible it says that you are to have the power of the Holy Spirit passed to you by the laying of hands. We call that Holy Orders. Do you see that Jesus had a reason for that. This laying of hands is something for all to see. Now where is your authority to teach without this? Because does the bible or does it not say that we all have different gifts? I do not see where the bible says we are all called to be Priests. My bible says we are all called to do different things.

Peter writes his letter to the Christian church in general.
1 Peter 1
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Peter
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Peter
9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

According to Peter we are a nation of royal priests and Peter was just reflecting the promise of God to Moses
Ex.19:5Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

6And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

 

[rinnie]

You know, when you are correcting me for my textual sins you really should read the scriptures first. It gives you a little more credability when you actually quote what the vs. say. Especially when you appear to have taken on yourself to be the spokesperson for your church which as you say “But the Church that has not only ORAL teaching and WRITTEN teachings disagrees with you.”
Here’s these quotes from the synoptics

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:14
But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Luke 18:16
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Notice that in all three Jesus does not say that the kingdom is for such. What He does say is “for of such is the kingdom of God.” Then in Mark and Luke He goes on to say
Mark10:15Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Well, what does it mean to recieve the kingdom of God. I typed in kingdom of God in my bible search and I got vs. like the ones below not once did they refer to infants.
Matt6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Mark 1:15
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Jesus says Matthew 18:3
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus apparently is saying that we have to repent become pure and trust in God as little children. I know the CC says that infants have original sin and must be purified of it but this does not appear to be the case. Jesus doesn’t tell us to baptise the children first before they can come unto Him, but He does say that we need to be as them.

Again, if you are going to be the CC’s spokesperson you really should start reading your bible.
John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Peter writes his letter to the Christian church in general.
1 Peter 1
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Peter
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Peter
9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

According to Peter we are a nation of royal priests and Peter was just reflecting the promise of God to Moses
Ex.19:5Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

6And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

What are you talking about Richard? I am talking about teaching authority. Tell me Richard what is the pilar and ground of the truth according to the bible???

 

[Richard_Kastner]

What are you talking about Richard? I am talking about teaching authority. Tell me Richard what is the pilar and ground of the truth according to the bible???

You said

I do not see where the bible says we are all called to be Priests. My bible says we are all called to do different things.

Merely answering your misunderstanding of what we are called to do. This is further brought out in 2Cor.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.

Rinnie, let me ask you who is the “us” in v. 18 refering to? Is it not every one of us who calls himself a Christian.
We are all called to be priests of the gospel, ambassadors for Christ

 

[dianaiad]

First off to be honest, I didn’t read the entire thread; but I thought I would share my story.

I married a Mormon wife, and she is opposed to infant baptisms because she feels it is blasphemy. It was a struggle that we both faced. In October we welcomed a perfect angel boy into the world. I talked to the Monsignor in my Diocese, because I felt that I was an not following the Sacraments and I was worried if something were to happen. Since we were married, I could not have the baby baptized because we would need my wife’s permission, which she was unwilling to do.

He ensured me that our Lord is loving, and that he understands that the baby cannot be baptized because of the situation and that He would not hold judgement against my child if anything were to happen; because God loves all children.

Since then, my wife has left me (because of my Catholic Faith and because I wish to teach my Son my Catholic beliefs.) We are now seperated and headed toward civil divorce (we didn’t marry in the Catholic church.) I have since been scheduled for the baptism class with intentions to have my son baptized within the next couple months .

I was willing to compromise my son’s baptizm to make the marriage work, but since I no longer have to compromise this Holy Sacrament, I having my son baptized. This is something that I would have never thought was possible a month ago.

The way I look at it, is that our Lord works in mysterious ways, and with His guidance He will lead us down the right path, even it the path is rocky and not what we thought was right. We need to learn not to question His guidance.

Ok, there is something very wrong with this one.

Why, if you required your wife’s permission to have your son baptised while you were married, are her wishes as his mother suddenly being ignored because she is no longer your wife?

I can tell you one thing; if you had left her over religion, and she wanted to have the child baptised at eight, married or not, divorced or not, YOUR permission would be required before the boy was ‘dunked.’

While I realize that I have no right to demand that you answer this question, I certainly do note the problem you have brought up here.

…and it’s a biggie.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I can tell you one thing; if you had left her over religion, and she wanted to have the child baptised at eight, married or not, divorced or not, YOUR permission would be required before the boy was ‘dunked.’

tech.lds.org/forum/showpost.php?p=37545&postcount=4

*Do you need consent of both parents before baptizing a child under 18?

For a minor child, you need the consent of the custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s), preferably in writing. ** If the parents are divorced, only the parent(s) with legal custody need to give permission*.

See CHI page 33.

For LDS, it is legalistic.

For Catholics, it is a moral duty to have your own children baptized.

 

[revscott]

Hmmmmmmmmm, was JESUS baptized as an infant? NO. HELLO?? Jesus was DEDICATED, not baptized. When was Jesus FIRST baptized (and only once!)? As an adult.

Is there a problem with infant baptism? Yes, there is. All too many people think they are going to Heaven simply because they were baptized as an infant. That alone should be enough, if one person goes to eternal Hell because of this misguided practice.

 

[cyberwolf001]

In my religion the concept of all humans being born as horrible, twisted, wicked creatures who deserve an eternity of torment doesn’t exist. Therefore we do no have a need for Baptism.

 

[revscott]

What religion is that?

 

[cyberwolf001]

Right there in my stats. Druid