Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[guanophore]

Yes I know. But as soon as we accept Christ as our Lord and Saviour (accomplished by baptism) we are also freed not only from our own sins but also from the original Sin!

Yes, but the consequences of that sin remain. Although the eternal price is paid, we continue to suffer in the flesh.

I am not sure if we are talking about the same woman in Revalation. I had a quick glance in my Concordance and I found only a woman who is referred to be the new City of Jerusalem (like it is often written in the OT. That the bride = Jerusalem and God it’s bridgerom!)
Please write me down the verses you are referring to!

I think it is a bit off topic here. There is a woman, clothed with the sun, with a crown in the heavens.

 

[guanophore]

When Jesus said man He meant an ADULT HUMAN. This is a generic meaning an ADULT of the human race. This would include women, but exclude infants. I have explained this to you many times, but you just don’t seem to get it.

Please do not mistake our refusal to embrace heresy as not “getting it”. We are quite clear about these and many other modern American Evangelical innovations. They constitute what is to us “a different gospel”. We cannot accept it, since it represents a departure from the Apostolic faith that was handed down to us. If we depart from that faith, we will be accursed.

It doesn’t state that pigs can’t fly either, that doesn’t mean they can.

If we received from the Apostles, as we did infant baptism, that pigs could fly, then we would be just as obligated to preserve this.

In Jn 1:11-13  He came to his own home and people received him not.  But to all who **received him. who believed **in his name he gave power to become CHILDREN OF GOD.

And it is clear that the power to become a child of God lies not with the individual, but with God. Therefore, the infant is just as eligible as the adult. There is nothing we can do to save ourselves.

All that I have done is relate the truth of what scripture says and the truth seems to be frustrating you.

It is frustrating to see persons who seem so sincere and committed to their faith stubbornly reject what was taught by the Apostles.

I’m not sure what your point is with all this.

Jesus taught the Apostles to receive the little children in His name. They baptised infants and small children because they understood that baptism replaces circumcision in the NT.

 

[guanophore]

What I did was make a statement. “Being born again means accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior in Faith.”

Indeed, this is part of the story.

Parents can choose acceptance on behalf of their children, just as Jesus’ parents took Him for circumcision.

This statement is still true. A man is not born again through baptism.

This represents a significant departure from the Apostolic faith.

Baptism is the outward sign of that acceptance.

Such a notion cannot be supported by Scripture at all. In fact, Scripture testifies otherwise.

See what you are doing by requiring infants to be “baptised”. is that you are depriving them of the free will choice to become children of God.

No, Richard. It is not “required” to baptize them. Parents bring them in faith, just as Jesus’ parents brought Him.

They don’t lose their ability to choose through baptism. They are washed of original sin, and are able to grow in the wisdom and fear of the Lord. However, they can choose to throw away the gift of salvation like anyone can.

This argument is like saying “by forcing your child to brush his teeth and go to the dentist for yearly cleaning you are depriving him of the opportunity to grow cavities”. Why would any parent that loved their child show it that way?

When they get old enough you tell them that the reguirements of baptism have been fullfilled when they have not.

Jesus did not give any reasons that children could not come to Him. On the contrary, He instructed that the Kingdom of Heaven was full of such as these.

He specifically ordered the Apostles not to hinder the children.

And the candidate may never accept Jesus because of this false belief. This is the real tragedy of your false belief in salvation through baptism, instead of through the blood of Christ.

No, Richard, you are misinformed. Children that are raised properly in the faith have a chance every day to accept Jesus, and to walk in the grace of their baptism. Along with everyone else, they have the opportunity to renew their baptismal vows at least once a year.

Baptism is the means by which God ordained that the merits of the Blood of Christ are applied to the individual. Baptism draws it’s power from His Blood, shed upon the cross for our sins.

The Apostles taught that baptism was the means by which we join Christ in His death and burial. It cannot be separated from the blood. There are three that testify, the water, the Spirit, and the blood.

 

[guanophore]

why would someone leave the church my family bapist and when i was old enough to understand everything i wish i was cathloic but i was born into the wrong family for that

Most Baptists that become Catholic suffer a lot of problems with devoted Baptist family members. Remember though, Jesus said that if you love your family more than Him, you are not worthy of Him. Do not remain apart from the fullness of faith just to avoid family conflict.

 

[Dokimas]

Most Baptists that become Catholic suffer a lot of problems with devoted Baptist family members. Remember though, Jesus said that if you love your family more than Him, you are not worthy of Him. Do not remain apart from the fullness of faith just to avoid family conflict.

Catholic family member give hard times to those who leave the CC; my wife knows first hand.

 

[guanophore]

Catholic family member give hard times to those who leave the CC; my wife knows first hand.

Yes.

I think if Catholics were better equipped to discuss and teach their faith, then this would not happen.

People (I was one) are spiritually hungry and seeking. Catholics did not teach me to read Scripture. Baptists did that!

A secure Catholic can support someone growing in faith, even though it may appear externally as a detour.

 

[Esdra]

Sorry. The illogical and emotive reasoning threw me off.

It reveals that to me because I have already received the Apostolic faith.

Others who have not find a different gospel there.

Then please have a look at these verses:

You see Trinity because you have already embraced this tenent of the Apostolic faith. Those who received a different gospel read it differently.

My point is that the text can be interpreted in as many ways as there are belly buttons. People with sincerity read the scriptures and come up with different findings. The scriptures were not intended to be used in separation from the Apostolic faith that produced them. When they are, all kinds of error results.

Actually nearly all christian denominations believe in the Trinity, well even the SDA Church does (and they are the ancestors of JW!).
All who “have a different gospel” are sects - like the mormons, the JWs, the Oneness Pentecostal Church (I don’t get it anyway - how can you be pentecostal, if you don’t believe in Trinity. And there are some other too, certainly - like the Monophysites (as far as I know they are Oriental Orthodox. - But please correct me if I am wrong!)
See, this is the difference between protestant denominations and (protestant) sects!
As Paul states it: "9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! " [NASB, **Gal 1:9]

Esdra

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry. The illogical and emotive reasoning threw me off.

Now wait a minute…

As a “she” with 4 DDs I resent that statement!

(I know, dear guanophore, you’re just kidding. I am, too.

Kind of. )

 

[guanophore]

Now wait a minute…

As a “she” with 4 DDs I resent that statement!

(I know, dear guanophore, you’re just kidding. I am, too.

Kind of. )

I apologize if my teasing was offensive to anyone. uch:

 

[jlhargus]

What I did was make a statement. “Being born again means accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior in Faith.” This statement is still true. A man is not born again through baptism. He is born again through acceptance of Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Baptism is the outward sign of that acceptance.

JL: Then you should have no problem showing scripture telling us HOW we are born again by accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior in Faith. Also post the scripture telling us BAPTISM is ONLY an outward sign OF ACCEPTANCE.

I was born again as an adult I was a bible only, non-denominational, Protestant before becoming Catholic. Baptized at age 27, 2am, March 3rd in a river with snow flurries. That’s when I was born again or from above by water and Spirit, as our Lord tells is in Jn3:5, after Nicodemus asked HOW we can be born again in Jn3:4.

What you call “BORN AGAIN” is not new BIRTH, but conception of supernatural faith life. My conception of supernatural faith life, before baptism, was the God given free gift of grace revealing himself to me. Enlightening and conceiving in my heart and mind the supernatural understanding (faith) I needed to turn to him (repent). So I called a Christian relative and went to his home, to ask, what must I do? I really didn’t know what I needed to do. Just as those in Acts2:37 Now WHEN THEY HEARD this, THEY WERE PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, AND SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, WHAT SHALL WE DO? 38 Then PETER SAID unto them, 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. 39 For THE PROMISE IS UNTO YOU, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

The gift of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who regenerates our dead soul after baptism. Now the regenerated soul can rule over the flesh, freeing us as slaves of the flesh. This is when we are truly born again by water and the Spirit, becoming a child of God, as our Lord tells us in Jn3.

See what you are doing by requiring infants to be “baptised”. is that you are depriving them of the free will choice to become children of God. When they get old enough you tell them that the reguirements of baptism have been fullfilled when they have not. And the candidate may never accept Jesus because of this false belief. This is the real tragedy of your false belief in salvation through baptism, instead of through the blood of Christ.

JL: If one cannot be baptized UNTIL they are “SAVED” then you are implying infants are not saved. If you say infants are saved then there is no reason to forbid water that they be baptized. After all doesn’t God will that all be saved and isn’t salvation a FREE gift, GIVEN by God, it cannot be earned, infants can’t earn anything. [Titus3:5 **Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, BY the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;] What do we use when we wash? Water and a cleansing agent (soap), it is the Holy Spirit who is the cleansing agent with water baptism. [Acts22:16 And now **WHY TARRIEST thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.] Peter tells us in Acts2:37-39 the promise IS to you and YOUR children. What is the promise? The Holy Spirit, [Lk24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

It is those who do not baptize children who are depriving the child of the indwelling life of God the Holy Spirit. [Jn3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, **Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. …4… 5 Jesus 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. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.] Children have only been born of flesh unless they are baptized, where they are born again by water and the Spirit.

The baptized child is not being deprived, but is being GIVEN ETERNAL LIFE thru the indwelling Holy Spirit given in baptism and made a CHILD OF GOD, brought into the kingdom. The child is not deprived, of free will choice, but given the Holy Spirit that they may better CHOSE to serve the Lord when old enough. Even the majority of Protestants baptize infants, you follow a false tradtion of men made a doctrine of God in the late sixteenth century.

**How does Christ wash us, from our sins, in his blood? How does Christ make us kings and priests unto God? **
[Rv 1:5 And from JESUS CHRIST, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD, 6 And hath MADE US KINGS AND PRIESTS UNTO GOD and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.]

**How are we saved by Christ’s mercy? How are we washed by Christ? How are we regenerated by Christ? How are we renewed of the Holy Ghost by Christ? **
[Titus:3:5 NOT BY WORKS of righteousness which we have done, **BUT according to HIS MERCY HE SAVED US, BY the WASHING OF REGENERATION, and RENEWING OF THE HOLY GHOST; 6 Which he SHED ON US abundantly THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR;]

 

[PRmerger]

I apologize if my teasing was offensive to anyone. uch:

Accepted. And I wasn’t *really *offended.

Just as an aside, I still hear lots of good dads telling their sons, “You’re acting like a girl!”.



Why should acting like a girl be an insult? Especially if telling a girl she’s “acting like a boy” has never been perceived as derogatory?

Oh, and since we’re on the subject, I LOVE this t-shirt that girls have that says, “You WISH you could throw like a girl!” A great rejoinder to the supposed insult, “You throw like a girl!”.

Just my :twocents:

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I don’t believe I asked you this rinnie. What I did was make a statement. “Being born again means accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior in Faith.” This statement is still true. A man is not born again through baptism. He is born again through acceptance of Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Baptism is the outward sign of that acceptance. See what you are doing by requiring infants to be “baptised”. is that you are depriving them of the free will choice to become children of God. When they get old enough you tell them that the reguirements of baptism have been fullfilled when they have not. And the candidate may never accept Jesus because of this false belief. This is the real tragedy of your false belief in salvation through baptism, instead of through the blood of Christ.

Well, Richard, infant baptism is a great way to show that Catholics do not believe in salvation through works.

For what “work” could a little infant do in order to merit the grace of God through Baptism? It is absolutely a free gift of God’s grace!

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t state that pigs can’t fly either, that doesn’t mean they can.

Since there’s over 40,000 different Christian denominations, Richard, each teaching different doctrines after reading the very same Scriptures (ok, give or take 7 books), I can’t be sure what your pastor teaches on this particular issue, but most Christians believe in artificial contraception, so I’m going to guess that you believe it’s ok as well.

However, the Bible nowhere states that contraception is ok.

Infant baptism isn’t allowed, in your paradigm, because the Bible doesn’t mention it.

Yet contraception IS allowed, yet the Bible also doesn’t mention it.

How does this work?

 

[Dokimas]

I apologize if my teasing was offensive to anyone. uch:

If you had not teased I would not have realized PR and I have something in common: she has 4DDs and so do I (I’m a dad, my nick is Dokimas, my real name begins with D and at times I realize God still uses donkeys (me) to speak to others, my wife thinks I’m down right cute, my desire is to be dedicated to Jesus * and {one more d - let me see} – I have two daughters). There, 8 D’s.:dancing:

Does this make me a ‘literalist’? *

 

[PRmerger]

If you had not teased I would not have realized PR and I have something in common: she has 4DDs and so do I (I’m a dad, my nick is Dokimas, my real name begins with D and at times I realize God still uses donkeys (me) to speak to others, my wife thinks I’m down right cute, my desire is to be dedicated to Jesus * and {one more d - let me see} – I have two daughters). There, 8 D’s.:dancing:

Does this make me a ‘literalist’? *

How could you not know I have 4 DDs until now? I thought we were friends and that you had seen my Private Album of my family.

 

[Dokimas]

How could you not know I have 4 DDs until now? I thought we were friends and that you had seen my Private Album of my family.

All males have drain bamage.

 

[PRmerger]

All males have drain bamage.

Ah. Yes. That explains a lot.

(Just kidding, my dear brother Doki! You know I love you! And I really try not to diss the male sex–after all my DH, dear departed dad, 3 brothers, and 3 godsons whom I l cherish are all subject to the same weaknesses that come with that Y-chromosome.)

And, haha! I just saw your joke with the “drain bamage”. I had read it quickly the first time as if it were correct!

 

[c_martyr]

For those who deny infant baptism, the burden of proof is upon you . . .

This does not seem correct.

Many Protestants (myself included) would probably be willing to adopt the practice of infant baptism if there were anything in the Scriptures that could support such a rite.

However, we do not have even a single instance in all of the BIble, where a child is ever said to have been baptized. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon the one who practices that which the Scriptures do not support.

If the Lord has commanded us to baptize our babies, then I will obey his command. Only show me where I can find it.

 

[PRmerger]

This does not seem correct.

Many Protestants (myself included) would probably be willing to adopt the practice of infant baptism if there were anything in the Scriptures that could support such a rite.

However, we do not have even a single instance in all of the BIble, where a child is ever said to have been baptized. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon the one who practices that which the Scriptures do not support.

If the Lord has commanded us to baptize our babies, then I will obey his command. Only show me where I can find it.

I don’t know where you get the paradigm that everything you do in church has to be found in Scripture.

I’m certain that altar calls and Wednesday night Bible studies are not found in Scripture, either.

Also, see my reference to contraceptives (post #670). Most Protestant denominations see nothing wrong with using artificial birth control, although this is a practice that the Scriptures do not support.

 

[c_martyr]

I don’t know where you get the paradigm that everything you do in church has to be found in Scripture. I’m certain that altar calls and Wednesday night Bible studies are not found in Scripture, either.

In my opinion you are comparing apples and oranges.

Clearly, the significance of baptism was too high to be left to the whims of men. Therefore baptism was divinely instituted by the Lord of glory, and therefore any alteration or addition to that which he hath spoken, is the highest contempt for his sovereign authority - see Proverbs 30:6!

And just so you know, the alter call is not a “protestant” practice, because I know of hundreds of congregations (if not thousands) who are protestant and who reject the alter call as being no more than a humanistic tradition of religio-political men, who know nothing of the power of God in conversion.

As for Wednesday night bible study, this is a pattern and practice which is continually set forth in the Scriptures - see Acts 2:42-47; 17:11.

Also, see my reference to contraceptives (post #670). Most Protestant denominations see nothing wrong with using artificial birth control, although this is a practice that the Scriptures do not support.

Again, this is not to be attributed to “protestants” in any general and exhaustive way. In fact, it is just because I am a protestant, that I reject any such use of artificial birth control, as do millions of protestants world-wide.

Your arguments are weak, because you take that which is particular, and paste it on to the majority. This is called an inductive argument, and it is not a respectable approach to sound apologetics.

(Edited)