Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[Esdra]

(Clearly, the Bible never mentions Joseph Smith.)

Hi catharina!

I like your view. lol

Esdra

 

[catharina]

Hi catharina!

I like your view. lol

Esdra

Thank you.
Some things MUST be said!

 

[dianaiad]

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.)

We believe that Christ gave His authority to Joseph Smith, as well. We do not believe that JS is any more–nor any less–important than Peter.

By the way, it is true that the bible does mention Peter. He is mentioned in Acts, Luke, John, Matthew, Mark, Paul’s letter to the Galatians (though that was an account of a disagreement between the two…), and of course Peter’s letters…

Does that mean, because he is not mentioned anywhere in the OT, or in any of the OTHER books of the NT, that he is not an apostle/prophet?

Catholics have doctrine/beliefs that are codified in non-scriptural works. You have the Sacred Tradition, for instance, that goes into things that are not in biblical scripture. You need to think about that before you use the ‘if it ain’t in the bible it can’t be true’ argument. That is an argument from sola scriptura…and the last I heard, Catholics were not that.

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you.
Some things MUST be said!

Well, I agree with both of you. The bible does not mention Joseph Smith. That could be an argument used by the Baptist…but it doesn’t work for the Catholic!

 

[Esdra]

Well, I agree with both of you. The bible does not mention Joseph Smith. That could be an argument used by the Baptist…but it doesn’t work for the Catholic!

Again very well stated! Luv it! +++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[LauraDymphna]

I used to be baptist, so I can answer this. Other denominations believe in the “believer’s baptism” only. And by immersion. This is Typical among Baptists, Charismatics, Church of Christ, Amish, Mennonite’s, Assembly of God, and Non or Interdenominational Churches. Baptists and Non or Inter-denominational Churches are unique in that they do not have a confirmation ceremony of sorts, identical with AoG. These 4 churches believe that unless you are “saved 1st” no legitimate baptism is found (true especially among baptists and southern churches) They also believe it must be done by immersion they have the Trinity part right, but they get it wrong in that it is only symbolic of Regeneration of the soul. Sadly, many who were properly baptised as infants wind up being rebaptised because these churches convince them that it wasn’t done properly. With the Amish Mennonites and COC it is slightly different, because they have special ceremonies for babies and adults and they believe baptism is regeneration however, they shun infant baptism, believing only in believer’s baptism using the Trinitarian formula by immersion. Amish and Mennonites are identical to the Anabaptist teachings of ancient Germany.

 

[catharina]

Again very well stated! Luv it! +++++++++++++++++++++++

Gotta love the Baptists.
Yet the statement works for me too and I’m Catholic.

Why do some people keep insisting that Peter is "prophet?’
Seraching for correlation for J. Smith? Probably.)

The “prophet” Peter? News to me.
The Apsotle and Martyr Peter? Yes.
Peter who received the keys to the kingdom of heaven? Yes.

 

[catharina]

I used to be baptist, so I can answer this. Other denominations believe in the “believer’s baptism” only. And by immersion. This is Typical among Baptists, Charismatics, Church of Christ, Amish, Mennonite’s, Assembly of God, and Non or Interdenominational Churches. Baptists and Non or Inter-denominational Churches are unique in that they do not have a confirmation ceremony of sorts, identical with AoG. These 4 churches believe that unless you are “saved 1st” no legitimate baptism is found (true especially among baptists and southern churches) They also believe it must be done by immersion they have the Trinity part right, but they get it wrong in that it is only symbolic of Regeneration of the soul. Sadly, many who were properly baptised as infants wind up being rebaptised because these churches convince them that it wasn’t done properly. With the Amish Mennonites and COC it is slightly different, because they have special ceremonies for babies and adults and they believe baptism is regeneration however, they shun infant baptism, believing only in believer’s baptism using the Trinitarian formula by immersion. Amish and Mennonites are identical to the Anabaptist teachings of ancient Germany.

Thank you, LD. Informative addition here.

 

[PJM]

=Esdra;6637759]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

My dear friends in Christ,

While I am always interested in what others chose to believe; it is not revelent to the truth of the issue. What Christ said, is precisely what what Christ meant to say.

Why is friends that Protestants seem to fixate on interperting sooooo many things Christ say’s assumimg that God cannot articulate what He God means. If God did not want infants Baptized [which is no small thing] don’t you think a perfect God would of said so.

This Luther mentality of knowing more and knowing better is both silly and frankly spiritually dangerous. Where in your bible does it give permission to second guess God, or to interpet anything and everything so it MAKES SENSE TO YOU? It FAITH we areto practice; and just what does that mean?

**Heb.11: [1] *****Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. *** By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear"

Love and prayers for Understanding friends,
Pat

 

[catharina]

My dear friends in Christ,

While I am always interested in what others chose to believe; it is not revelent to the truth of the issue. What Christ said, is precisely what what Christ meant to say.

Why is friends that Protestants seem to fixate on interperting sooooo many things Christ say’s assumimg that God cannot articulate what He God means. If God did not want infants Baptized [which is no small thing] don’t you think a perfect God would of said so.

This Luther mentality of knowing more and knowing better is both silly and frankly spiritually dangerous. Where in your bible does it give permission to second guess God, or to interpet anything and everything so it MAKES SENSE TO YOU? It FAITH we areto practice; and just what does that mean?

**Heb.11: [1] *****Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. *** By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear"

Love and prayers for Understanding friends,
Pat

Luther, in stepping away from the Catholic Church, at the same time stepped away from Truth.
It’s that obvious.

 

[4Squarebaby]

I used to be baptist, so I can answer this. Other denominations believe in the “believer’s baptism” only. And by immersion. This is Typical among Baptists, Charismatics, Church of Christ, Amish, Mennonite’s, Assembly of God, and Non or Interdenominational Churches. Baptists and Non or Inter-denominational Churches are unique in that they do not have a confirmation ceremony of sorts, identical with AoG. These 4 churches believe that unless you are “saved 1st” no legitimate baptism is found (true especially among baptists and southern churches) They also believe it must be done by immersion they have the Trinity part right, but they get it wrong in that it is only symbolic of Regeneration of the soul. Sadly, many who were properly baptised as infants wind up being rebaptised because these churches convince them that it wasn’t done properly. With the Amish Mennonites and COC it is slightly different, because they have special ceremonies for babies and adults and they believe baptism is regeneration however, they shun infant baptism, believing only in believer’s baptism using the Trinitarian formula by immersion. Amish and Mennonites are identical to the Anabaptist teachings of ancient Germany.

Not done improperly, the AoG and others like them do not believe the baptism in itself is necessary to make you a Christian with salvation issues at sake but rather only a believer can show the community he is a brother Christian through the ceremonial and public baptism.

 

[Esdra]

Not done improperly, the AoG and others like them do not believe the baptism in itself is necessary to make you a Christian with salvation issues at sake but rather only a believer can show the community he is a brother Christian through the ceremonial and public baptism.

Exactely
that’s what I also got to know from my Baptist Church here in Austria (I think she is rather pentecostal or something) at least it isn’t a real Baptist Church in the US sense I guess.
However, my Church is called “Free Evangelical Church”. I think it is a mixture between anabaptists, baptists and pentecostalism…

Esdra

 

[PJM]

=Richard Kastner;6639609]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.

Mt task is to share the truth; God’s to lead you to understanding IF it is His Will?

From Haydock’s Commentary:“Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost. Though the word Holy be now wanting in all Greek copies, it is certainly the sense.** The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ’s adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism. See also Acts viii. 36. and x. 47. and Titus iii. 5. **Except a man be born again. That is, unless you are born again by a spiritual regeneration in God, all the knowledge which you learn from me, will not be spiritual but carnal. But I say to you, that neither you nor any other person, unless you be born again in God, can understand or conceive the glory which is in me. (St. Chrysostom)”

Love and prayers for Understanding friend.

 

[Esdra]

My dear friends in Christ,

While I am always interested in what others chose to believe; it is not revelent to the truth of the issue. What Christ said, is precisely what what Christ meant to say.

Why is friends that Protestants seem to fixate on interperting sooooo many things Christ say’s assumimg that God cannot articulate what He God means. If God did not want infants Baptized [which is no small thing] don’t you think a perfect God would of said so.

This Luther mentality of knowing more and knowing better is both silly and frankly spiritually dangerous. Where in your bible does it give permission to second guess God, or to interpet anything and everything so it MAKES SENSE TO YOU? It FAITH we areto practice; and just what does that mean?

**Heb.11: [1] *****Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. *** By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear"

Love and prayers for Understanding friends,
Pat

Just wanted to state something here:
So you don’t like Luther, because he “knew everything better”?
But what about the Church-teachers then? St. August, St. Thomas of Aquin and so on?
They didn’t know everything better? I think the whole ST is based upon people “knowing better”.
Tell me, what’s the difference between Luther (or even any other Reformist) and let’s pick one: St. Thomas of Aquin. (Or St. Ignat etc…)

Best wishes,
Esdra

 

[catharina]

Just wanted to state something here:
So you don’t like Luther, because he “knew everything better”?
But what about the Church-teachers then? St. August, St. Thomas of Aquin and so on?
They didn’t know everything better? I think the whole ST is based upon people “knowing better”.
Tell me, what’s the difference between Luther (or even any other Reformist) and let’s pick one: St. Thomas of Aquin. (Or St. Ignat etc…)

Best wishes,
Esdra

Only guessing here but major difference?
Luther opposed and then left the Church, abandoning his vocation and marrying a wife.

 

[Esdra]

Only guessing here but major difference?
Luther opposed and then left the Church, abandoning his vocation and marrying a wife.

Luther just wanted to reform the Catholic Church. But he didn’t succed.
So he left. - Well actually he was left by the pope…
Well and with this schisma he started an avalanche → many protestant churches at the moment.
So actually I find him very curacious. I like him and his teachings, too.

 

[PJM]

=Esdra;6643301]Just wanted to state something here:
So you don’t like Luther, because he “knew everything better”?
But what about the Church-teachers then? St. August, St. Thomas of Aquin and so on?
They didn’t know everything better? I think the whole ST is based upon people “knowing better”.
Tell me, what’s the difference between Luther (or even any other Reformist) and let’s pick one: St. Thomas of Aquin. (Or St. Ignat etc…)

Best wishes,
Esdra

Augustine and St. Thomas were [are] Informed and fully practicing Catholics of the ONLY Church founded by Christ, practicing and explaining this Faith so others too can chose to [or in your case chose NOT to know the truth.]

Luther is a heritic who chose to abandon his God, his God’s teaching, beliefs and practices." The comparison is precisely between good and Evil!

Acts.20:28 “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church [SINGULAR] of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. “

Eph. 2:19 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [SINGULAR ]in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

Heb.6 Verses 4 to 10: “For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, [chosen by God for His CC] who have tasted the heavenly gift, [Eucharist] and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, [Confirmed in the Catholic Faith] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, [By those empowered by God to understand and share His Word; His CC] if they then commit apostasy,[Like Luther did] since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. “

And look up Matt. 16:v. 19 again friend.

May God continue to Bless you and grant you understanding.

 

[rinnie]

Just wanted to state something here:
So you don’t like Luther, because he “knew everything better”?
But what about the Church-teachers then? St. August, St. Thomas of Aquin and so on?
They didn’t know everything better? I think the whole ST is based upon people “knowing better”.
Tell me, what’s the difference between Luther (or even any other Reformist) and let’s pick one: St. Thomas of Aquin. (Or St. Ignat etc…)

Best wishes,
Esdra

Hi Esdra, Here is one thing I would like to say about Luther also and what I think the other post was trying to explain to you. Luther was taught the word of God from the teaching’s of the Apsostles. But he choose to reject the teaching of the word of God that was taught to the Church and do thing’s his way.

It has been told that Luther regretted much of what he did and said. But what is really sad is how many people he took down with him, and fell from the true teahing’s of the Apostles also.

One thing that amazed me about Luther is he took one thing that was true, there were some Leaders in the Church that were doing wrong. But find me one Church that the leaders are perfect. But anyway he took something blew it out of proportion and then tried to change the whole teaching of God.

He wanted to run the Church the way he saw fit. And the Pope did indeed do the right thing, threw him out.

I see alot of luthers today also. They look for any excuse and love to find something on a Church leader to try to bring the CC down even today. But luther and others forgot one thing. The words of our Dear Jesus.

He said that THe gates of hades will never prevail. You must admit how amazing is that! After 2000 years and the Church that Jesus started is still going strong the way he promised. God always keeps his promises. And I pray I can always keep mine and stay true to his teachings of his Church also.

Luther rejected these words.

John 10:16 There shall be one fold and one shepherd. It is sad that someone who had such an opportunity to be taught the way he had, and given the grace from God to do so, could turn on the Church the way he did. But as we have seen there are many Judas in this world.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

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.

Mt task is to share the truth;

True

God’s to lead you to understanding IF it is His Will?

Actually the task (work) of the Father is that we believe in Him whom He sent.
Jn.6:29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. That would be Jesus. Above I have included my post that you reply to here. You include an excerpt from Haydock’s Commentary that says about
Jn. 3:5Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
"The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants"
I don’t know PJM perhaps you could explain to me how when Jesus says “5Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” That this is proof that we should baptise infants?

From Haydock’s Commentary:"Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost. Though the word Holy be now wanting in all Greek copies, it is certainly the sense.** The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ’s adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism. See also Acts viii. 36. and x. 47. and Titus iii. 5. **

Except a man be born again. That is, unless you are born again by a spiritual regeneration in God, all the knowledge which you learn from me, will not be spiritual but carnal. But I say to you, that neither you nor any other person, unless you be born again in God, can understand or conceive the glory which is in me. (St. Chrysostom)"

Again I must ask. How is it possible for an infant to achieve this spiritual regeneration?

Love and prayers for Understanding friend.

And also for you.

 

[PJM]

=Richard Kastner;6645804]True

Actually the task (work) of the Father is that we believe in Him whom He sent.
Jn.6:29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. That would be Jesus. Above I have included my post that you reply to here. You include an excerpt from Haydock’s Commentary that says about
Jn. 3:5Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
"The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants"
I don’t know PJM perhaps you could explain to me how when Jesus says “5Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” That this is proof that we should baptise infants?

Again I must ask. How is it possible for an infant to achieve this spiritual regeneration?

And also for you.

Good morning friend: Consider this.

There are BILLIONS of planets and stars in the Universe that we know of.

There is ONLY ONE that can support life… planet earth.

A human person is both physical [body, brain ect.] and Spiritual [mind, intellct, freewill and soul].

With hundreds of thousands of living speicies on earth; only humanity is so gifted. WHY?

The first and fianl cause of each of these is we believe God. “All every good thing perfected.”

So your saying “only men” [not women] need to be born again? Or does the term “men” [mankind] in this application apply to all humanity?

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Tis None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
"tis "

Definition
a certain, a certain one
some, some time, a while

King James Word Usage - Total: 448
certain 104, some 73, any man 55, any 37, one 34, man 34, anything 24, a 9, certain man 7, something 6, somewhat 6, ought 5, some man 4, certain thing 2, nothing + (3756)&version=kjv 2, divers 2, he 2, thing 1, another 2, not translated 17, miscellaneous 22

Same Search from the New American Bible:

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Anthropos 1:364,59
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
anth’-ro-pos Noun Masculine

** Definition **
**a human being, whether male or female **
generically, to include all human individuals
to distinguish man from beings of a different order of animals and plants
of from God and Christ of the angels; with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into a mistake or prompted to sin with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul; with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God

NAS Word Usage - Total: 544 **
any 1, anyone 1, child 1, enemy 1, everyone 1, fellow 1, friend 1, human 5, human judgment 1, human relations 1, king* 1, Man 89, man 232, man’s 8, mankind 5, men 164, men’s "

Obviously God does not intend to exclude woumen from Salvation; in the same way He includes ALL OF HUMANITY, including infants!

How? It is God, salvation is GOOD so God accomplishes it. Amen! Infants are “regenerated” precisely as are we; BY GOD!

Love and prayers,
Pat