Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[Richard_Kastner]

Again with the little sign
[SIGN]I think we should follow what Jesus says. Don’t you? [/SIGN]
Then you say

[SIGN][/SIGN]
Me too Richard.

Meaning that you agree with me/us that we should only baptise men or adults and then you go on to say that we should follow your church. “The CHurch says Baptise them as soon as possible”
What is it rinnie? Jesus or the CC. The way I see it you can’t have it both ways.

And in the O.T babys were circumcised which is now be replaced by baptism. Babys were circ. without their consent so beings that baptism replaced circ, but has the same meaning it would make sense that God would not with-hold it from infants.

I have given you a very thorough explaination of this.

Ok, let’s examine this a little closer. Who chose the Jews to be “The Chosen People”. Of coarse it was God. Now, this was a commandment of God. God tells Abram that through him all nations will be blessed.Gen 12. This of coarse is a reference to His plan of salvation. Manifest in Jesus Christ. This was God’s decision. There is no faith involved on the part of the people and God in order to identify His chosen people COMMANDS that they be cicumcised.
Ok, fast forward to Jesus time
Jn.3:3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
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.

What Jesus is saying here is that a man an adult of the human race (mankind)must choose to be born again so that he can enter the Kingdom. So, just as circumcision is an outward sign of God’s choice of His people.
Gen.17
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.

Baptism becomes the outward sign of our choice to be one of God’s people.
This choice is a matter of faith and cannot be entered into by an infant.

If you don’t agree with this, that’s fine, but I would appreciate you telling me where my exegesis fails

You have no right to dispute the teaching of the Church Richard because you have no authority given to you by God to do so.

Isaiah 8:Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
You have said in this post that we need to follow the churchs teaching over what Jesus teaches. Is not Isaiah saying here that we should not follow after those that do not speak according to the law and the testimony (The Bible).

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Paul spoke with the authority of the Holy Spirit of God yet the Bereans “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” We need to stick with the bible. It and it alone is infallible because it is THE WORD OF GOD.

So it only makes sense to listen to the Church like Jesus told us.

The CHurch says Baptise them as soon as possible!!

Again, if the church any church is in conflict with the word of God. We need to follow God and throw out the errant doctrine.

 

[rinnie]

Again with the little sign
[SIGN]I think we should follow what Jesus says. Don’t you? [/SIGN]
Then you say

Meaning that you agree with me/us that we should only baptise men or adults and then you go on to say that we should follow your church. “The CHurch says Baptise them as soon as possible”
What is it rinnie? Jesus or the CC. The way I see it you can’t have it both ways.

I have given you a very thorough explaination of this.

If you don’t agree with this, that’s fine, but I would appreciate you telling me where my exegesis fails

Isaiah 8:Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
You have said in this post that we need to follow the churchs teaching over what Jesus teaches. Is not Isaiah saying here that we should not follow after those that do not speak according to the law and the testimony (The Bible).

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Paul spoke with the authority of the Holy Spirit of God yet the Bereans “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” We need to stick with the bible. It and it alone is infallible because it is THE WORD OF GOD.

Again, if the church any church is in conflict with the word of God. We need to follow God and throw out the errant doctrine.

Richard I believe I have made myself quite clear on my views on baptism. I will not argue with you on what I said. I am sure my posts were quite clear on what I said, and scripture to back up the word of God and the teachings of the Church of the Living Christ the Catholic Church.

You will have to find somone else to argue with Richard, or argue with yourself. I have made myself quite clear.

I will continue to Pray for you Richard that you can someday start to be able to understand the teachings of the Church.

For now as St Augustine says Case Closed.

The Pope has the authority to teach the Church and he uses this authority. You reject this authority and the authority of the Church so there is nothing I can do to help you, but pray for you. So I will continue to pray for you. I will do the Christian thing as God tells me and shake the dust from my feet. May Gods peace be with you Richard.

 

[rinnie]

rinnie, you need to get a grip. In this post you include a quote box. This quote is from you rinnie and in this quote you ask me. “Tell me Richard what is the pilar and ground of the truth according to the bible???” In this very same post you deny your own quote. “Okay Richard I never asked you what is the pilar and ground of all truth:shrug:” What’s up here rinnie?

Richard you know darn well what is up here. You denied that I asked you that question and I showed you proof that you did. You are great at playing games and denying truths Richard. You did again the same way you do it with scripture that People show you.

Even when I showed you proof that you were asked that question which you denied you could not admit it. Wow!!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard you know darn well what is up here. You denied that I asked you that question and I showed you proof that you did. You are great at playing games and denying truths Richard. You did again the same way you do it with scripture that People show you.

Even when I showed you proof that you were asked that question which you denied you could not admit it. Wow!!

Ok, I get it

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???

Okay Richard I never asked you what is the pilar and ground of all truth

In the second quote you don’t use any punctuation. so I assume that you are making a statement.

These are perfect examples to what you do to all questions that are asked of you. You either ignore them, or claim they were never asked.
Then you continue to go out in left field with scripture that does not even relate to what you were asked.

Ya that’s the problem you never make it clear that it is a question. I have tried to the best of my ability to answer your questions thoroughly and completely with pertinant information. The fact that you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they are out in left field. When I was young I was not the best player and I never got to play left field. I’m glad you gave me the chance.

These are perfect examples to what you do to all questions that are asked of you. You either ignore them, or claim they were never asked. Then you continue to go out in left field with scripture that does not even relate to what you were asked.

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

This is the question I was answering when you came out with your tirad above. Notice there is no mention of pillar and ground of truth.

Ya, I think you’re right. We’re starting to get on each others nerves, at least I know you are on mine. So maybe we should take a break. But, if I see you comming out with misinformation, I’ll be on you like a duck on a June bug. Just kidding. Always wanted to say that. Peace rinnie.

 

[Esdra]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Yes love Jesus is talking about Traditions of MAN not Sacred Traditions. Remember my love there is one rule of thumb in understanding scripture. Scripture cannot contradict scripture. SO if it does we are not understanding it correctly. Then we must go back and figure it out.

Actually Jesus is talking about many Traditions of GOD, especially of those written in Exodus and Leviticus!! Are those Traditions of MAN? Are you sure? As far as I have understood those Traditions they are given from God when he did the old covenant with the Jews after he had lead them out of Egypt! This and also the Concil of the Apostels in Rome, are the Reason why we don’t have circ., are allowed to eat pork etc…
But you are right Jesus talks about Traditions of Man also (just found it in Matthew 15), ie how the teachers of the scripture and the pharisees interpret the books of Moses and the whole other OT.

So be very carefull to read what Jesus is saying and not letting people try to tear down the Church.

Do we Baptists want to tear down Church? No, not at all! I have nothing against the Catholic Church and my brothers and sisters in Christ also not! We also don’t have anything against Mormons, Jehovahs Wittnesses, Seventh-Day-Adventists or any other denomination. And our aim will never be to tear down church! How did you come to that thought?

Listen to what Paul is saying he warns them see that no one makes a prey of your philosophy and empty deceit according to HUMAN Traditon and not truths that were handed down to the Church by Apostoic Tradition. There is a big difference.

I would say Paul is referring to pagan Traditions and (greek) Philosophy as all his “sheep” were pagans…

What is ST or Apostolic Tradition. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow ST as well as the bible. Luke 10:16 Eph 3:5 ohn 14:25 16:13

**
Could that be that the ST ARE the bible, at least in this sense as your are writing about it here, especially the NT? The more I read about it either in posts you answer of Richard or in mine I am starting to think more and more so.**

Whether then it was I or they so we preach and so you believed 1 cor 15:3, 11 The Apostle praised those who followed Tradition. I comment you because you remember me in everything and maintain the TRADITIONS even as I have Delivered them to you.

These traditions you are referring to here are the NT, I am sure now! It is simply the Gosple - the Good News; We now it as NT now! So we do believe in the ST? - Even Richard does, although he doesn’t know that term ST as I don’t. (1 John 2,14 is quite good about that I think. - Is here also the Tradition, the ST, meant you are always stating?)

See my Love scripture cannot contradict scripture.

I know - where does it? I think it is mainly a matter of interpretation! I strongly believe that the Catholic Interpretation - the ST as you call it (you really get me confused with this ST thing!! What is the ST actually? The Doctrine of the RCC or the NT or is it the “Catholic Interpretation of the Bible”?!)- diverges from the Protestant because it wouldn’t fit together with the Catholic Doctrine!
By the Way my pastor also keeps on saying: The scripture explains itself!

The first christian devoted themself to Apostlic teachings (ST) acts 2:42 long before the N.T.

In this case the apostolic Teachings ARE the present NT Testament, aren’t they? We Baptists also devote themselves to the NT, don’t we?

To be perfectly honest: As you know I was a Catholic for nearly 16 years and I never came across the term ST (just as Richard never did. Although I am not sure if he ever was a Catholic…)
For me ST as you stated it in this post is simply the thing we call NT know. So we are again at Luther’s “Sola Scriptura”. At least sometimes when you mention it. In other times it sounds as if you are referring to the Doctrine of the RCC. I am really confused (see above!!) - I even start repeating myself, see? ^^

Keep studying love it will come clearer each day.

**
I do, I do. Every night before I go to bed. I was often laughed at when I had said that to my friends… But I will never deny Jesus and that I love him! And you are right. It comes clearer every day! I learn so much new things every time I read a chapter in the Bible. That’s amazing!**

There are human traditions and ST or (Apostolic teachings) it means the same thing. Please note to see they are two different things. Human Traditon are traditions of Man, ST is the teachings of Christ.

**Okay, I think I got it. HT and ST are 2 different things. But ST is the same thing what we call now NT (that means the 4 Evangelies and the letters of Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude and the Revalation.)

Uhm, but what has this to do with the Catholic Doctrine? Nothing. Or have I missunderstood something here? Okay that’s quite probable! ^^ See above! **

Best wishes,
Esdra

 

[Esdra]

Actually Jesus is talking about many Traditions of GOD, especially of those written in Exodus and Leviticus!! Are those Traditions of MAN? Are you sure? As far as I have understood those Traditions they are given from God when he did the old covenant with the Jews after he had lead them out of Egypt! This and also the Concil of the Apostels in Rome, are the Reason why we don’t have circ., are allowed to eat pork etc…
But you are right Jesus talks about Traditions of Man also (just found it in Matthew 15), ie how the teachers of the scripture and the pharisees interpret the books of Moses and the whole other OT.

Do we Baptists want to tear down Church? No, not at all! I have nothing against the Catholic Church and my brothers and sisters in Christ also not! We also don’t have anything against Mormons, Jehovahs Wittnesses, Seventh-Day-Adventists or any other denomination. And our aim will never be to tear down church! How did you come to that thought?

I would say Paul is referring to pagan Traditions and (greek) Philosophy as all his “sheep” were pagans…

**
Could that be that the ST ARE the bible, at least in this sense as your are writing about it here, especially the NT? The more I read about it either in posts you answer of Richard or in mine I am starting to think more and more so.**

These traditions you are referring to here are the NT, I am sure now! It is simply the Gosple - the Good News; We now it as NT now! So we do believe in the ST? - Even Richard does, although he doesn’t know that term ST as I don’t. (1 John 2,14 is quite good about that I think. - Is here also the Tradition, the ST, meant you are always stating?)

I know - where does it? I think it is mainly a matter of interpretation! I strongly believe that the Catholic Interpretation - the ST as you call it (you really get me confused with this ST thing!! What is the ST actually? The Doctrine of the RCC or the NT or is it the “Catholic Interpretation of the Bible”?!)- diverges from the Protestant because it wouldn’t fit together with the Catholic Doctrine!
By the Way my pastor also keeps on saying: The scripture explains itself!

In this case the apostolic Teachings ARE the present NT Testament, aren’t they? We Baptists also devote themselves to the NT, don’t we?

To be perfectly honest: As you know I was a Catholic for nearly 16 years and I never came across the term ST (just as Richard never did. Although I am not sure if he ever was a Catholic…)
For me ST as you stated it in this post is simply the thing we call NT know. So we are again at Luther’s “Sola Scriptura”. At least sometimes when you mention it. In other times it sounds as if you are referring to the Doctrine of the RCC. I am really confused (see above!!) - I even start repeating myself, see? ^^

**
I do, I do. Every night before I go to bed. I was often laughed at when I had said that to my friends… But I will never deny Jesus and that I love him! And you are right. It comes clearer every day! I learn so much new things every time I read a chapter in the Bible. That’s amazing!**

**Okay, I think I got it. HT and ST are 2 different things. But ST is the same thing what we call now NT (that means the 4 Evangelies and the letters of Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude and the Revalation.)

Uhm, but what has this to do with the Catholic Doctrine? Nothing. Or have I missunderstood something here? Okay that’s quite probable! ^^ see again above! **

Best wishes,
Esdra

 

[Esdra]

The Pope has the authority to teach the Church and he uses this authority. You reject this authority and the authority of the Church so there is nothing I can do to help you, but pray for you. So I will continue to pray for you. I will do the Christian thing as God tells me and shake the dust from my feet. May Gods peace be with you Richard.

Hi again,

I have to bring a statement to that point:

Do you know that I also reject the pope as authority in teaching questions?
Everyone can intrpret the bible for himself through the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus gave ALL of us and not only the apostles, who are the descendents of the priests and bishops, if you want so. (see Acts 2, 1-12. ALL were present. And from the NT you should know that Jesus didn’t just have the 12 (Apostles), but a lot of other disciples!! - They formed the first Christian Community, so to speak!)
The pope is noone but a failable human. The bishop of Rome and nothing more. Note, that Peter also was “just the bishop of rome”. It only came later on when christianity became the main religion in the Roman Empire when all problems began.
People were forced to become Christians by the imperator. But they didn’t wanted to give up “their human Traditions” ie their pagan Religion. And so the Church started to “invent” Saints and also the Holy Virgin Mary, who became a “mother deity” - from History, or even from the OT, you could know that every culture had their “mother deity” - the Assyrs (you know her from the OT maybe) had Astarte. The Egyptians Isis, the Greek Hera and the Romans June and the Germanic peoples Freya.
Christianity didn’t have such a thing, and so they started worshipping the Holy Virgin Mary and “made Saints” to worship as gods (I think you can see the worship of saints and the Holy Mary best in the Orthodx church - here it is even more visible than in the RCC. This is because the RCC progressed [at least a bit] - but the Orthodox Churches didn’t!)
And this is only one of the Problems that arised 380 AD (when Theoditius I made Christianty to the only Religon of the Roman Empire!).
So it is also false that the RCC is 2010 years old. Actually it is “only” 1610 years old, even a little bit younger.
This is because BEFORE 380 AD the Ancient Christianity existed and I believe that this Ancient Christianity is restored through Luther and later on through all protestant Churches (I refer to the Evengelical Lutherian Church, the (Ana)baptists, the Mennonites, the United Methodist Church and the Pentecostal Churches and all other similar Churches who believe in the Trinity!)

To Astarte in the OT look here: Judges 2,13, Judges 10,6, 1Sam 7,4 and 1Sam 12,10; Judges 3,7;1Sam 31,10, 1Kings 11,5.33 and 2Kings 23,13; 1Sam 31,10, 1Kön 11,5.33 and 2Kön 23,13, 1Sam 31,10; and so on.

Also have a look at Jeremiah 7, 16-19 (eventually to the end of the chapter also), if you are courageous enough!

Best wishes,
Esdra

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Ok, I get it

In the second quote you don’t use any punctuation. so I assume that you are making a statement.

Ya that’s the problem you never make it clear that it is a question. I have tried to the best of my ability to answer your questions thoroughly and completely with pertinant information. The fact that you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they are out in left field. [SIGN]When I was young I was not the best player and I never got to play left field. I’m glad you gave me the chance.[/SIGN]

This is the question I was answering when you came out with your tirad above. Notice there is no mention of pillar and ground of truth.

Ya, I think you’re right. We’re starting to get on each others nerves, at least I know you are on mine. So maybe we should take a break. But, if I see you comming out with misinformation, I’ll be on you like a duck on a June bug. Just kidding. Always wanted to say that. Peace rinnie.

Good one Richard I will give you that. Didn’t mean to get on your nerves though, well maybe I did

At least you have a sense of humor. There is hope for you yet Richard. May Gods peace be with you also Richard!!

 

[rinnie]

Hi again,

I have to bring a statement to that point:

Do you know that I also reject the pope as authority in teaching questions?
Everyone can intrpret the bible for himself through the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus gave ALL of us and not only the apostles, who are the descendents of the priests and bishops, if you want so. (see Acts 2, 1-12. ALL were present. And from the NT you should know that Jesus didn’t just have the 12 (Apostles), but a lot of other disciples!! - They formed the first Christian Community, so to speak!)
The pope is noone but a failable human. The bishop of Rome and nothing more. Note, that Peter also was “just the bishop of rome”. It only came later on when christianity became the main religion in the Roman Empire when all problems began.
People were forced to become Christians by the imperator. But they didn’t wanted to give up “their human Traditions” ie their pagan Religion. And so the Church started to “invent” Saints and also the Holy Virgin Mary, who became a “mother deity” - from History, or even from the OT, you could know that every culture had their “mother deity” - the Assyrs (you know her from the OT maybe) had Astarte. The Egyptians Isis, the Greek Hera and the Romans June and the Germanic peoples Freya.
Christianity didn’t have such a thing, and so they started worshipping the Holy Virgin Mary and “made Saints” to worship as gods (I think you can see the worship of saints and the Holy Mary best in the Orthodx church - here it is even more visible than in the RCC. This is because the RCC progressed [at least a bit] - but the Orthodox Churches didn’t!)
And this is only one of the Problems that arised 380 AD (when Theoditius I made Christianty to the only Religon of the Roman Empire!).
So it is also false that the RCC is 2010 years old. Actually it is “only” 1610 years old, even a little bit younger.
This is because BEFORE 380 AD the Ancient Christianity existed and I believe that this Ancient Christianity is restored through Luther and later on through all protestant Churches (I refer to the Evengelical Lutherian Church, the (Ana)baptists, the Mennonites, the United Methodist Church and the Pentecostal Churches and all other similar Churches who believe in the Trinity!)

To Astarte in the OT look here: Judges 2,13, Judges 10,6, 1Sam 7,4 and 1Sam 12,10; Judges 3,7;1Sam 31,10, 1Kings 11,5.33 and 2Kings 23,13; 1Sam 31,10, 1Kön 11,5.33 and 2Kön 23,13, 1Sam 31,10; and so on.

Also have a look at Jeremiah 7, 16-19 (eventually to the end of the chapter also), if you are courageous enough!

Best wishes,
Esdra

Yes Love I kinda figured you reject the Pope and his teaching or you would still be Catholic.

The only proof I have that he is infallible is the word of Jesus. He himself promised us this. He promised it to his Apostles and thier successors. He said he who hears you hear me. and He said Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven (Matt 18:18)

Jesus told Peter lead my Sheep. The Pope has a direct Line to Peter and is still the leader. Vatican II tells us he enjoys in virtue of his office when as supreme shephard and teacher of all the faithful who confirms his brethren in their faith Luke 22:32

Infallibility belong in a special way to the Pope as head of the bishops Matt 16:17-19 John 21:15-17

I simply LOVE the Pope. Pope Paul II was awesome. I swear to you he looked just like my Dad to boot.

The new Pope is growing on me alot though. He is such a awesome teacher. He wrote a book Jesus of Nazareth that would blow your mind. He as such a way of teaching. Its amazing. In that book he actually brings the bible to life.

My kids make fun of me. My dream is to take a ride with in a the Pope mobile

Just hang in there kiddo and study. Trust me someday you will also come home to Rome!!:

The best way to learn about the Church is try to prove it wrong. When you cannot do this the truth will be given to you. Take your time it will come.

But we got to get back On topic. We are going to get in SO MUCH TROUBLE!!

Thanks for not turning us in guys! Sister is going to come with her ruler again. I always get in trouble!!

 

[PJM]

=BILL PICK53;5240373]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.

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

They do so out of

Ignorance

Fear

Superstition

All of which out the souls of there Holy Innocents at unnecessary risk. Let us pray.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

They do so out of

Ignorance

Fear

Superstition

All of which out the souls of there Holy Innocents at unnecessary risk. Let us pray.

No, actually we do it because that’s what Jesus tells us to do.

Jn.3:3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

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. **

When Jesus says in v. 3 “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” He is telling us that we as adults must make a decision to follow Him. Then Nicodemus asks “How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” He realises that Jesus is talking about adults here. He’s just not sure how to do it. Well Jesus tells Him a man (an adult) must accept Him and be baptised and recieve the Holy Spirit in order to “enter into the kingdom of God”
There is nothing about this exchange that even suggests that an infant should be baptised. Quite the contrary after Nicodemus asks “Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?” Jesus Goes into a quite lengthy discoarse about baptism and He starts out by telling Nicodemus a member of th Jewish ruling body the Sanhedren that He should have known these things already. Jesus being a prophet says "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Rev. 19:10b for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. The prophets have talked about Jesus and the new birth experience from the beginning. He rebukes Nicodemus for not knowing and teaching about Him already. Then Jesus explains to Nicodemus just exactly what Baptism is all about.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reprovedc. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

And what it is about is faith and that is something that an infant is not capable of.

 

[PJM]

=Richard Kastner;6636199]No, actually we do it because that’s what Jesus tells us to do.

Jn.3:3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

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. **

When Jesus says in v. 3 “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” He is telling us that we as adults must make a decision to follow Him. Then Nicodemus asks “How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” He realises that Jesus is talking about adults here. He’s just not sure how to do it. Well Jesus tells Him a man (an adult) must accept Him and be baptised and recieve the Holy Spirit in order to “enter into the kingdom of God”
There is nothing about this exchange that even suggests that an infant should be baptised. Quite the contrary after Nicodemus asks “Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?” Jesus Goes into a quite lengthy discoarse about baptism and He starts out by telling Nicodemus a member of th Jewish ruling body the Sanhedren that He should have known these things already. Jesus being a prophet says "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Rev. 19:10b for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. The prophets have talked about Jesus and the new birth experience from the beginning. He rebukes Nicodemus for not knowing and teaching about Him already. Then Jesus explains to Nicodemus just exactly what Baptism is all about.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reprovedc. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

And what it is about is faith and that is something that an infant is not capable of.

Richard my friend that is your uninlightened and subjective opinion. It is NOT what the Bible say’s and Objectively NOT what Jeasus is saying and means. Which is more likey:
That God mis-sopke and is wrong or that Richards undersrstanding is wrong.

Love and prayers friend

 

[Esdra]

Richard my friend that is your uninlightened and subjective opinion. It is NOT what the Bible say’s and Objectively NOT what Jesus is saying and means. Which is more likely:
That God mis-sopke and is wrong or that Richards understanding is wrong.

Love and prayers friend

Actually you’ll be surprised, but I have to agree with Richard. This is the same teaching as we Baptists have…

This IS what the bible says. He quoted it - there are no doubts!

But I won’t write WHY we reject the baptism of infant, because I have done that long and broad before in this thread. See to those posts, if you are interested.

Best wishes,
Esdra

 

[BernadetteM]

Mormons do not baptize before the age of 8. The Book of Mormon actually calls infant baptism an abomination:

Moroni 8:14-“Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.”

So according to Mormons, those that believe in infant baptism go to Hell.

But don’t they also baptize the dead including non Mormons?

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Esdra]

But don’t they also baptize the dead including non Mormons?

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

You are absolutely right Bernadette. So the Mormons believe.

I know that because I was with one foot in the LDS Church, during my search for our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am sure some of the LDS Board members will also say you are right!

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[dianaiad]

But don’t they also baptize the dead including non Mormons?

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

Yes we do, Bernadette. The difference for us, of course, is that no matter what we do, we claim that the person for whom the work is done has the absolute ability to accept or reject it, and if it is rejected, it was…never done, of no effect whatsoever. In fact we claim that in order for such work to have effect, it must be deliberately and willingly accepted by those for whom it was done.

Catholic baptism of infants does not take what they want into account at all, and once done, the doctrine is that it cannot be undone; it leaves an ‘indelible mark’ upon the soul that cannot be removed, for eternity…and the child who was baptised never has a choice in the matter.

Ever.

I will freely admit that this idea bothers me, as it does most Mormons I have spoken to about it: this idea of being able to do something to others that is so important to their eternal lives, without their knowledge, consent—or their being able to disavow it, ever.

(shrug) The irony in the whole thing, of course, does scream rather loudly.

 

[BernadetteM]

Yes we do, Bernadette. The difference for us, of course, is that no matter what we do, we claim that the person for whom the work is done has the absolute ability to accept or reject it, and if it is rejected, it was…never done, of no effect whatsoever. In fact we claim that in order for such work to have effect, it must be deliberately and willingly accepted by those for whom it was done.

Catholic baptism of infants does not take what they want into account at all, and once done, the doctrine is that it cannot be undone; it leaves an ‘indelible mark’ upon the soul that cannot be removed, for eternity…and the child who was baptised never has a choice in the matter.

Ever.

I will freely admit that this idea bothers me, as it does most Mormons I have spoken to about it: this idea of being able to do something to others that is so important to their eternal lives, without their knowledge, consent—or their being able to disavow it, ever.

(shrug) The irony in the whole thing, of course, does scream rather loudly.

We follow Christ and the Bible, Mormons follow Joseph Smith, big difference. This is said in charity, but truth is more important for the saving of souls.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard my friend that is your uninlightened and subjective opinion. It is NOT what the Bible say’s and Objectively NOT what Jeasus is saying and means. Which is more likey:
That God mis-sopke and is wrong or that Richards undersrstanding is wrong.

Love and prayers friend

The words of Jesus are my subjective opinion? That’s a novel idea. Let me ask you PJM What is your take on these words of Jesus.

Jn.3:3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, **Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. **

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

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 when Jesus says **Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. ** He really means an infant and if this is your take what is your basis for it? And how do you explain Nicodemus’ thoughts on what Jesus is saying? Maybe you think that what Nicodemus really meant was how can an infant when he is old enter a second time into the womb? Oh wait a minute. that would ask the same question he asked before. Ya, PJM you’re going to have to explain yourself here.

 

[dianaiad]

We follow Christ and the Bible, Mormons follow Joseph Smith, big difference. This is said in charity, but truth is more important for the saving of souls.

God Bless

Bernadette

I respect your opinion in this matter, Bernadette. I hope that you also respect that I believe that WE, as LDS, believe that we are the ones more certainly following Christ and the Bible. We no more follow Joseph Smith than you do Peter.

I do note the complete non-answer to my comment regarding choice, though.

 

[catharina]

We follow Christ and the Bible, Mormons follow Joseph Smith, big difference. This is said in charity, but truth is more important for the saving of souls.

God Bless

Bernadette

Yes. In following Christ, we do indeed follow Peter too,
since Our Lord gave HIS authority to Peter. We follow Christ and the Bible.
That includes following Peter and his successors in the Vatican.

(Clearly, the Bible never mentions Joseph Smith.)