Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[Richard_Kastner]

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.]

Augustine was probably a Catholic. Thomas was an apostle and a member of the church that Christ founded (not the CC).

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!

I’m assuming by this statement that you are putting yourself on God’s throne and judging Luther. Careful!!! Matt.7:1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

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. “

Paul admonishes to care for Christ’s church (not CC)

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.”

This can’t be talking of the CC because it teaches that Christ built His church on Peter (the cornerstone).

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]

Enlightened by the Spirit of God.
Eph.1: 17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

who have tasted the heavenly gift, [Eucharist]

Gifts of the Spirit 1Cor.12:1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
4Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, [Confirmed in the Catholic Faith]

Recieved the anointing of the Holy Spirit 1Jn.2:27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

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]

Have tasted the goodness of Jesus Jn1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Who is the embodyment of the age to come.

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.

Your account is incomplete. It says: Heb6: 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 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.

To renew … unto repentance. That is, to bring about a desire for repentance. The case is not that of a man seeking to return to God, finding repentance impossible, but that of a man with no desire to return to the experience from which he has fallen away. Again when you put Luther in this catagory you are saying that Luther did not repent. This is something you cannot know and is placing yourself on God’s throne.

May God continue to Bless you and grant you understanding.

And also you.

 

[PJM]

=Richard Kastner;6646108]Augustine was probably a Catholic. Thomas was an apostle and a member of the church that Christ founded (not the CC).

WRONG Thomas [my opps] I’m speaking here of Aquinas, a Dr. of The CC Teachings. Agustine too is “a Doctor of the CC.”

I’m assuming by this statement that you are putting yourself on God’s throne and judging Luther. Careful!!! Matt.7:1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Not at all. FACTS and history!

Paul admonishes to care for Christ’s church (not CC)

“The Way”; “Chrisitian” and “Catholic” are a progression [a growth] of synomous terms. When Paul wrote these wrods was BEFORE the end of the First Century. THERE WERE NO OTHER CHURCHES [nor are there today] FOUNDED BY JESUS! FACT!

This can’t be talking of the CC because it teaches that Christ built His church on Peter (the cornerstone).[/QIOTE]

Amen! But as history proves there was [and remains today] ONLY ONE Church, which Paul Himself affirmd MANY TIMES: "Eph. 4: 4 “There is one body [One Church] and one Spirit, [One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, [One God] one faith, [One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”

Enlightened by the Spirit of God.
**Eph.1: 17That **

the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

WORDS written by Catholic Paul to other Catholics specifically and precisely. NOT to Protestants about 1,500 years later.

Recieved the anointing of the Holy Spirit 1Jn.2:27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Again By Catholic Paul for other Catholics!

Have tasted the goodness of Jesus Jn1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Who is the embodyment of the age to come.?QUOTE]

NOPE! Mt. 26, Mk. 14, Lk.22, Jn.6, Paul 1st. Cor 11: … take eat…take drink…“This Is MY Body, This Is My Blood, Do this in Memory of Me.” God can’t lie or make a mistake.

Your account is incomplete. It says: Heb6: 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance;

seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 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.

To renew … unto repentance. That is, to bring about a desire for repentance. The case is not that of a man seeking to return to God, finding repentance impossible, but that of a man with no desire to return to the experience from which he has fallen away. Again when you put Luther in this catagory you are saying that Luther did not repent. This is something you cannot know and is placing yourself on God’s throne.

Your correct in that I can’t know if Luther repented. Still there is no evidence that he did. The verse of course applies to fallen away Catholics who do not repent. Your point is well taken.

Love and prayers,

 

[rinnie]

WRONG Thomas [my opps] I’m speaking here of Aquinas, a Dr. of The CC Teachings. Agustine too is “a Doctor of the CC.”

Not at all. FACTS and history!

“The Way”; “Chrisitian” and “Catholic” are a progression [a growth] of synomous terms. When Paul wrote these wrods was BEFORE the end of the First Century. THERE WERE NO OTHER CHURCHES [nor are there today] FOUNDED BY JESUS! FACT!

This can’t be talking of the CC because it teaches that Christ built His church on Peter (the cornerstone).[/QIOTE]

seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 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.

Your correct in that I can’t know if Luther repented. Still there is no evidence that he did. The verse of course applies to fallen away Catholics who do not repent. Your point is well taken.

Love and prayers,

I have read that he did call for a Catholic Priest in the end, but then I also was told that this is not true:shrug: I guess we can only pray that it is, and that he did indeed confess to the Catholic Priest.

I do know that he pray the Rosary on his death bed, so thats was a positive thing to hear.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Richard_Kastner]

WRONG Thomas [my opps] I’m speaking here of Aquinas, a Dr. of The CC Teachings. Agustine too is “a Doctor of the CC.”

Gotcha!!!

Not at all. FACTS and history!

Are you saying it is facts and history that Luther did not repent. This is something that facts and history have no way of knowing and it is for God to judge this not you, facts, or history

“The Way”; “Chrisitian” and “Catholic” are a progression [a growth] of synomous terms.

This is Your opinion

When Paul wrote these wrods was BEFORE the end of the First Century. THERE WERE NO OTHER CHURCHES [nor are there today] FOUNDED BY JESUS! FACT!

Again, your opinion

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.”

You quoted Ephesians here. To which I replied

This can’t be talking of the CC because it teaches that Christ built His church on Peter (the cornerstone).

To which you replied

Amen!

Amen meaning that you agree with me that Eph. 2 above is not talking of the CC. and then you go on to say

But as history proves there was [and remains today] ONLY ONE Church, which Paul Himself affirmd MANY TIMES: "Eph. 4: 4 “There is one body [One Church] and one Spirit, [One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, [One God] one faith, [One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”

Which I totally agree with. That Paul was talking of the church that Jesus founded and that church was not the CC.

WORDS written by Catholic Paul to other Catholics specifically and precisely. NOT to Protestants about 1,500 years later.

Paul was a messianic Jew and he preached to the gentiles. Non-Jews, non-Christians.
Pil.3:3For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

He preached to gentiles in his day. He preaches to gentiles today as well as Catholics and anyone else who picks up a bible.

Again By Catholic Paul for other Catholics!

Paul wasn’t a Catholic. The CC teaches as a matter of faith that Mary was assumed into heaven. Paul says in Gal.1:8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. So, you need to show were this doctrine of Mary’s assumption occures in Pauls writings. If you cannot and I am sure that Paul did not preach this doctrine, it and those that preach it are accursed according to Paul.

Have tasted the goodness of Jesus Jn1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Who is the embodyment of the age to come.

NOPE! Mt. 26, Mk. 14, Lk.22, Jn.6, Paul 1st. Cor 11: … take eat…take drink…“This Is MY Body, This Is My Blood, Do this in Memory of Me.” God can’t lie or make a mistake.

Of coarse He can’t lie, but you can and do misunderstand Him.

Your account is incomplete. It says: Heb6: 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 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. To renew … unto repentance. That is, to bring about a desire for repentance. The case is not that of a man seeking to return to God, finding repentance impossible, but that of a man with no desire to return to the experience from which he has fallen away. Again when you put Luther in this catagory you are saying that Luther did not repent. This is something you cannot know and is placing yourself on God’s throne.

Your correct in that I can’t know if Luther repented. Still there is no evidence that he did.

I don’t think you are getting my point. It doesn’t matter if there is no evidence that he did not repent, it just is not for you to judge (condemn) him or anyone. That authority belongs to God alone.

The verse of course applies to fallen away Catholics who do not repent. Your point is well taken.

The v. applies to those who have fallen away from Christ’s church, not the CC

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Gotcha!!!

Are you saying it is facts and history that Luther did not repent. This is something that facts and history have no way of knowing and it is for God to judge this not you, facts, or history

This is Your opinion

Again, your opinion

You quoted Ephesians here. To which I replied

To which you replied

Amen meaning that you agree with me that Eph. 2 above is not talking of the CC. and then you go on to say

Which I totally agree with. That Paul was talking of the church that Jesus founded and that church was not the CC.

Paul was a messianic Jew and he preached to the gentiles. Non-Jews, non-Christians.
Pil.3:3For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

He preached to gentiles in his day. He preaches to gentiles today as well as Catholics and anyone else who picks up a bible.

Paul wasn’t a Catholic. The CC teaches as a matter of faith that Mary was assumed into heaven. Paul says in Gal.1:8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. So, you need to show were this doctrine of Mary’s assumption occures in Pauls writings. If you cannot and I am sure that Paul did not preach this doctrine, it and those that preach it are accursed according to Paul.

Of coarse He can’t lie, but you can and do misunderstand Him.

Your account is incomplete. It says: Heb6: 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 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. To renew … unto repentance. That is, to bring about a desire for repentance. The case is not that of a man seeking to return to God, finding repentance impossible, but that of a man with no desire to return to the experience from which he has fallen away. Again when you put Luther in this catagory you are saying that Luther did not repent. This is something you cannot know and is placing yourself on God’s throne.

I don’t think you are getting my point. It doesn’t matter if there is no evidence that he did not repent, it just is not for you to judge (condemn) him or anyone. That authority belongs to God alone.

[SIGN]The v. applies to those who have fallen away from Christ’s church, not the CC

[/SIGN]

Richard please prove to us that the CC is not Christ’s Church. Thanks

 

[Richard_Kastner]

[SIGN][/SIGN][/SIGN]

Richard please prove to us that the CC is not Christ’s Church. Thanks

You can’t prove a negative rinnie. That’s like asking me to prove that Monday isn’t Teusday. You need to prove that it is.

 

[rinnie]

You can’t prove a negative rinnie. That’s like asking me to prove that Monday isn’t Teusday. You need to prove that it is.

Sure its simple. Jesus said to Peter on this rock I will build MY Church. Peter has a direct link to the Pope. The Pope can be traced back to Peter.

What part do you deny that Jesus asked Peter to start the Church? Or History that proved direct succession?

The Pope is a direct link to Peter. Check out history. Don’t take our word for it. Are you saying History is lying also?

 

[rinnie]

You can’t prove a negative rinnie. That’s like asking me to prove that Monday isn’t Teusday. You need to prove that it is.

Oh my Richard you don’t know that there is a difference between the days of the week either:bigyikes:

I guess 1+1 does not equal 2 either.

Believe me Monday is not Tuesday and Wednesday is not Thursday. Ask a lst grader maybe they can explain it to you.

Maybe pre-school actually. I think that when they learn the days of the week.:whacky:

 

[SirThomasMore]

My answer would be why SHOULD a baby or infant be baptized?

Example, a child is born, breathes, lives for a few minutes and no time for a baptism, do you believe that God in his most tender of mercies would NOT accept that child? I believe he would.
t.

If you only go by who really “needs” it, then Jesus should have never been baptized.

All must be baptized. There are verses in Acts where it specifies that whole households were baptized. Households include infants.

 

[avflf]

Peter, the first Pope and chief disciple, when asked by the multitudes what they should do turned to them and said (Act 2:38) " …, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Jesus said (Mar 16:16) *“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” *
Act 8:12 *“But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” *No children
(Act 8:36) *“And 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?” *(v.37) “And 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.”
John baptized for the remission of sins (Mat 3:6) “And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.”
It seems to me, but I could be dead wrong, that baptism per se is of no value if repentance and belief do not precede it. It is my understanding that baptism is an outward sign of dying to the old me and becoming a new creation in Christ and signifies my desire for my old self to be buried and to rise again anew.
I cannot see little children and infants meeting the above criteria. Could “household” and “all” in other verses mean adults only?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Peter, the first Pope and chief disciple, when asked by the multitudes what they should do turned to them and said (Act 2:38) " …, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Yes, Peter would have said since he was preaching to adults. I believe your point is a faulty one. Had Peter said, “I am a doctor and you must all wash your arms and get immunized” would that have excluded immunizing children because they could not wash their own arms?

Jesus said (Mar 16:16) *“He that believeth *and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

Notice Jesus only said “believeth not” will be damned. Once could be baptized and not yet believe. Still, Jesus was speaking to adults. So, same point that I made with Peter.

Act 8:12 *“But when they believed *Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” No children

So you wish to believe that no children being mentioned means no children were baptized, but when other verses say whole households, you wish to believe that did not include children? Seems you want it both ways. If it does n ot say children, it means no children, if it says whole households, it also does not mean children? Hard to lose an argument when no matter what the words say, you get to imply whatever helps your cause…

(Act 8:36) *“And 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?” *(v.37) *“And 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.”

Irrelevant. He was speaking to a specific person.

John baptized for the remission of sins (Mat 3:6) *“And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing *their sins.”

And?

It seems to me, but I could be dead wrong, that baptism per se is of no value if repentance and belief do not precede it. It is my understanding that baptism is an outward sign of dying to the old me and becoming a new creation in Christ and signifies my desire for my old self to be buried and to rise again anew.

Your argument has a problem…if John ONLY baptized for the remission of sins, then why was Jesus baptized? Are you saying Jesus had sins to confess? If you believe Jesus had no sins to confess and that, therefore, His baptism was not for the remission of sins, then it is clear that John did not baptize only those who confessed. I

I cannot see little children and infants meeting the above criteria. Could “household” and “all” in other verses mean adults only?

I can see very clearly children meeting the criteria of being in the whole household. I can also see children being baptized because Jesus all should be baptized, not just people over a certain age. Just as the circumcision was performed in the OT to show being in a covanent with God, so, likewise, does Baptism signify the same.

 

[Esdra]

avflf:

John baptized for the remission of sins (Mat 3:6) “And were baptized of him in Jordan,** confessing their sins**.”

SirThomasMore answered:

And?

I can answer that: avflf wanted to say that baptism only makes sense if you confess your sins and become a new creation (cf. 2 Cor 5:17):

"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."

Therefore the words “confessing their sins” are important for us Protestants in avflf’s Post.

God bless you all,
Esdra

 

[SirThomasMore]

I can answer that: avflf wanted to say that baptism only makes sense if you confess your sins and become a new creation (cf. 2 Cor 5:17):

Therefore the words “confessing their sins” are important for us Protestants in avflf’s Post.

God bless you all,
Esdra

Never said it was not important. I said it was not necessary for baptism. If you claim it is, then you must, by definition, believe Jesus was sinful.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

I can see very clearly children meeting the criteria of being in the whole household.

By children I assume you mean infants. Do you apply that same reasoning to Acts 18:8 where it says that Crispus believed on the Lord with all his house? Do we assume there were infants in his house who heard and believed?

I can also see children being baptized because Jesus all should be baptized, not just people over a certain age.

Can you show where you get this notion that “all should be baptized”? I don’t understand what you mean by “all.”

Just as the circumcision was performed in the OT to show being in a covanent with God, so, likewise, does Baptism signify the same.

But if the un-circumcised keep the righteousness of the Law, are they not counted as circumcised according to the old covenant? Likewise, if an infant is not baptized and committed no offence, is it not counted as baptized?

 

[SirThomasMore]

By children I assume you mean infants. Do you apply that same reasoning to Acts 18:8 where it says that Crispus believed on the Lord with all his house? Do we assume there were infants in his house who heard and believed?

I assume that all means all, and not some

Can you show where you get this notion that “all should be baptized”? I don’t understand what you mean by “all.”

It means all, not some

But if the un-circumcised keep the righteousness of the Law, are they not counted as circumcised according to the old covenant? Likewise, if an infant is not baptized and committed no offence, is it not counted as baptized?

no…baptized is baptized

 

[avflf]

Notice Jesus only said “believeth not” will be damned. Once could be baptized and not yet believe. Still, Jesus was speaking to adults. So, same point that I made with Peter.

But I also noticed that Jesus did not say “but he that is not baptized shall be damned”

Your argument has a problem…if John ONLY baptized for the remission of sins, then why was Jesus baptized? Are you saying Jesus had sins to confess? If you believe Jesus had no sins to confess and that, therefore, His baptism was not for the remission of sins, then it is clear that John did not baptize only those who confessed.

This is the way I see it “There was no particular precept in the Old Testament requiring this, but he chose to give the sanction of his example to the baptism of John, as to a divine ordinance. The phrase “all righteousness,” here, is the same as a righteous institution or appointment. Jesus had no sin. But he was about to enter on his great work. It was proper that he should be set apart by his forerunner, and show his connection with him, and give his approbation to what John had done. He submitted to the ordinance of baptism, also, in order that occasion might be taken, at the commencement of his work, for God publicly to declare his approbation of him, and his solemn appointment to the office of the Messiah.” from Barnes Commentary on the NT
So, Jesus baptism was meant to show those present that he approved of John’s work
Circumcision had nothing to do with salvation but was merely a covenant with the Jews only, as a sign of their status as a chosen people.

So you wish to believe that no children being mentioned means no children were baptized, but when other verses say whole households, you wish to believe that did not include children? Seems you want it both ways. If it does n ot say children, it means no children, if it says whole households, it also does not mean children? Hard to lose an argument when no matter what the words say, you get to imply whatever helps your cause…

And you keep on harping on 2 words without giving any thought to the practical implications and requirements for the act as presented to you by the texts.
That baptism came second to repentance is clearly illustrated in the scene of the thief on the cross who repented of his sins and was told by Jesus that “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Lk 23:43). I do not read anywhere that someone came with a ladder and a bucket of holy water to baptize the thief as he hung there.
What is the reason for baptism in your mind? From what I know, Catholic belief teaches that it is for the remission of the “original sin” committed by Adam and Eve in Paradise and that this sin is passed down to everyone at birth (or is it at conception?) but where is this stated? All I know is that the Bible says in Deu 24:16 *“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” * and you read its implication in 2Ki 14:6 *“But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” *
Am I not making sense?

 

[SirThomasMore]

But I also noticed that Jesus did not say “but he that is not baptized shall be damned”

This is the way I see it

And therein lies the problem. This is why there are over 40,000 denominations in this country alone, all using the Bible, and all teaching something a little different. All because so many people say, :“this is the way I see it”.

“There was no particular precept in the Old Testament requiring this, but he chose to give the sanction of his example to the baptism of John, as to a divine ordinance. The phrase “all righteousness,” here, is the same as a righteous institution or appointment. Jesus had no sin. But he was about to enter on his great work. It was proper that he should be set apart by his forerunner, and show his connection with him, and give his approbation to what John had done. He submitted to the ordinance of baptism, also, in order that occasion might be taken, at the commencement of his work, for God publicly to declare his approbation of him, and his solemn appointment to the office of the Messiah.” from Barnes Commentary on the NT
So, Jesus baptism was meant to show those present that he approved of John’s work
Circumcision had nothing to do with salvation but was merely a covenant with the Jews only, as a sign of their status as a chosen people.

Sorry, but you can;t have it both ways. YOU claimed that for there to be a baptism, there had to be confession and a remission. Now, faced with the realization that you mispoke, you backtrack. The bottom line, people who were adults had to confess, Christ and children were just baptized.

And you keep on harping on 2 words without giving any thought to the practical implications and requirements for the act as presented to you by the texts.

I am not sure how me discussion specific words mentjoned in the Bible is any different than you mentioning words in the Bible. But ok. If there are other words in the Bible you also find particularly annoying, let me know and maybe we can petition to have them removed.

That baptism came second to repentance is clearly illustrated in the scene of the thief on the cross who repented of his sins and was told by Jesus that “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Lk 23:43). I do not read anywhere that someone came with a ladder and a bucket of holy water to baptize the thief as he hung there.

True. But your point is irrelevant because Paradise was not heaven. We have no idea if maybe he was baptized wherever Paradise is. And another point, while you and I cannot determine who should be baptized, I am pretty certain Jesus can waive any condition he wants…can;t He?

What is the reason for baptism in your mind? From what I know, Catholic belief teaches that it is for the remission of the “original sin” committed by Adam and Eve in Paradise and that this sin is passed down to everyone at birth (or is it at conception?) but where is this stated? All I know is that the Bible says in Deu 24:16 *“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” *

Yes. But take that verse in contex. If we are not stained by original sin, we would all be born in the Garden of Eden as pure as Adam. Though I believe Texas is the best place on earth, it is not the Garden of Eden. Jesus said all must be baptized. Now, if you can show me where Jesus said “except kids”, I would certainly rethink my position

What is odd for me in this discussion is that the Bible clearly states “all” and “whole households” and you, and others somehow beleive “all” does not really mean “all” and that “whole households” does not really mean “whole households”. Is this anything like the word “is” not meaning “is”?

 

[rinnie]

By children I assume you mean infants. Do you apply that same reasoning to Acts 18:8 where it says that Crispus believed on the Lord with all his house? Do we assume there were infants in his house who heard and believed?

Can you show where you get this notion that “all should be baptized”? I don’t understand what you mean by “all.”

But if the un-circumcised keep the righteousness of the Law, are they not counted as circumcised according to the old covenant? Likewise, if an infant is not baptized and committed no offence, is it not counted as baptized?

Brian what exactly do you reject Catholic teaching on infant baptism or Christ’s words. IT is exactly the same.

John 3:5 No one enters heaven without baptism of water and the spirit.

I have read on this thread, this is what I think, and I don’t think etc. Lets go by the words of God for a change and listen to him. How about that

So lets take the words of St Paul for a change. Acts 22:16 So WHY DELAY Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away calling upon his name.

Do you not realize that when a Child is Baptised the Priest says I Baptise you in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is giving that CHild to CHrist by calling on his name.

Do you not realize that we are all born into original sin that is given to us by Adam and Eve. Do you reject the O.T or what. Do you not know what Baptism is? Baptism is what saved us through bath of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5)

Col 3:12 burned with him in baptism raised with him in faith.

Col. 2:13 You wre dead in transgressions he brought you to life.

Please quit rejecting the words of CHrist. We are ALL brought into this world by original sin. So beings that we are all brought into this world one way as babies, how in the world can you reject original sin? I cannot understand your reasoning.

 

[avflf]

What is odd for me in this discussion is that the Bible clearly states “all” and “whole households” and you, and others somehow beleive “all” does not really mean “all” and that “whole households” does not really mean “whole households”. Is this anything like the word “is” not meaning “is”?

(Luk 2:1) “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.”

It would have been a bountiful harvest if all the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Maoris, and Texas’ native Americans heeded the call.

 

[SirThomasMore]

(Luk 2:1) "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."

It would have been a bountiful harvest if all the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Maoris, and Texas’ native Americans heeded the call.

How odd that you would compare a decree from a Roman ruler with a command from Jesus. And how odd that you cannot see the difference between a Roman Ruler speaking about “all” as he knows it and Jesus speaking about “all” as HE knows it.