Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[guanophore]

Care should be taken not to read into verses something that is not there. I understand I must take care to do a better job following this advice myself.

Yes, it is very important to read the scriptures in context. However, we know that the context of the New Testament is the Catholic Church, through whom, and for whom, it was written. Therefore, we can understand what is written much better in the light of what the Church that produced it believes and teaches.

A charismatic catholic ‘service’ is different that a traditional catholic ‘service’. Sure there are similar aspects, but they are different. You are a stickler for sameness (your continued reference to 40,000 differences).

The differences in denonominations we are talking about are doctrinal, not praxis.

The charismatic catholics and the traditional catholics all hold the same doctrine. It is the doctrine of the faith, which was handed down to us from the Apostles.

I am not sure what you mean by “service”. Both Traditional and charismatic catholics follow the GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal). Those who do not follow it (and some have not) are out of order, and are usually committing a Liturgical abuse of some kind.

If you are talking about a prayer service, then yes, they will be very different. Traditional Catholics tend to exclusively use formal prayers, while Charismatics use spontaneous prayers.

And for the record, PR has never advocated “sameness” in anything. She is a champion of the UNITY of doctrine that exists in the Church founded by Christ. Although all 23 Catholic Rites have unity of docrine, the “service” or practices differ in culture, language, dress, etc.

 

[dyluck]

A charismatic catholic ‘service’ is different that a traditional catholic ‘service’. Sure there are similar aspects, but they are different. You are a stickler for sameness (your continued reference to 40,000 differences).

Thats just it. Protestants just put a name to it.
Nobody’s saying that every “40k” denominations are right. Narrow is the way which leads to life. I stand behind that 100%

Catholics say that their church is infalable that their teachers are infallible like the pope. In terms of the bride of Christ, the redeemed are concidered infallable or righteous; however, the men who make up the church still housed in a body of sin. The bride is infallable in God’s eyes but the man is still subject to sin and decipt. Thats why the bible says “test the spirit” and that people “flock to teachers who tickle their ears” Curious if these teachers are infallable too… They had the laying on of hands. That, of course, means nothing as we read in Hebrews 6 and 10. Because someone laid hands on you or prayed for you doens’t mean you are now infallable. Litterally if you think something is coming from the holy spirit you better make sure what you are being taught is 100% biblical. The holy spirit will not introduce new thigs not founded or supported in the teaching of Christ and the bible guaranteed.

So, that said, the “cannon” that has been continiously changed and added to. I read about many practices and doctrine you do not find in the bible. The only thing infallably writ is the Word of God itself. So this is why you don’t blindly follow a religion and priests but test it against scripture. It seems nowadays so many people are testing scripture against ritual and man made rules. Unfortunatly so many people Catholics and protestants allike are throwing out truth for lies because the God of the Bible is a fiend of Self (which includes works that one can boast about).

 

[dyluck]

Originally Posted by rinnie
Actually we do. The Priests, Bishops, Pope, Etc in the Church were given the gift of God by the imposition of hands. 2 Tim. 1:6

Luke 10:16 Whoever hears YOU hears ME, he who rejects you rejects me.
John 14:16, 16, 26 The Holy Spirit will be with you ALWAYS to teach and REMIND you of

2 Tim. 1:6 - The holy spirit itself is your gift in this context. This is not exclusive to popes and bishops but children of God. We are comissioned to do work for God in which is teaching, sharing the gospel, missions etc. They laying on of hands doesn’t necissairly mean that you indeed will be baptized in the holy spirit either. This is the choice of Christ not at the beconning of man.

John 14:16 needs to be understood that YES the holy spirit will be with you, if indeed it is the holy spirit. I want you to concider this verse: 1 John 4:1 Keep in mind that acknowldeging Jesus if from God is acknowledging His teaching and the Word itself (Jesus is the word) and the bible is the word. Being 100% for reprove not external man made laws / rituals nor the apocrypha added to it.

 

[rinnie]

2 Tim. 1:6 - The holy spirit itself is your gift in this context. This is not exclusive to popes and bishops but children of God. We are comissioned to do work for God in which is teaching, sharing the gospel, missions etc. They laying on of hands doesn’t necissairly mean that you indeed will be baptized in the holy spirit either. This is the choice of Christ not at the beconning of man.

John 14:16 needs to be understood that YES the holy spirit will be with you, if indeed it is the holy spirit. I want you to concider this verse: 1 John 4:1 Keep in mind that acknowldeging Jesus if from God is acknowledging His teaching and the Word itself (Jesus is the word) and the bible is the word. Being 100% for reprove not external man made laws / rituals nor the apocrypha added to it.

If the laying of hands which is called Holy Orders. is not just for Popes, Priests, and Bishops but also for all Children of God, then why are we not all called to be Priests, Bishops, and Popes etc?

 

[rinnie]

And also scripture quotes that we are all called by the Holy Spirit to do different things. But according to you we are all called to do the same things

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Thats just it. Protestants just put a name to it.
Nobody’s saying that every “40k” denominations are right. Narrow is the way which leads to life. I stand behind that 100%

[SIGN]Catholics say that their church is infalable that their teachers are infallible like the pope. [/SIGN] In terms of the bride of Christ, the redeemed are concidered infallable or righteous; however, the men who make up the church still housed in a body of sin. The bride is infallable in God’s eyes but the man is still subject to sin and decipt. Thats why the bible says “test the spirit” and that people “flock to teachers who tickle their ears” Curious if these teachers are infallable too… They had the laying on of hands. That, of course, means nothing as we read in Hebrews 6 and 10. Because someone laid hands on you or prayed for you doens’t mean you are now infallable. Litterally if you think something is coming from the holy spirit you better make sure what you are being taught is 100% biblical. The holy spirit will not introduce new thigs not founded or supported in the teaching of Christ and the bible guaranteed.

So, that said, the “cannon” that has been continiously changed and added to. I read about many practices and doctrine you do not find in the bible. The only thing infallably writ is the Word of God itself. So this is why you don’t blindly follow a religion and priests but test it against scripture. It seems nowadays so many people are testing scripture against ritual and man made rules. Unfortunatly so many people Catholics and protestants allike are throwing out truth for lies because the God of the Bible is a fiend of Self (which includes works that one can boast about).

Not only do Catholics say it, Jesus says its too

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger
If you can’t cite a source that says how many Protestant denominations are in existence, then I’ll continue to use my statistic of 40,000.

Go for it!

. . . but the joke is on you . . .

Joke? And yet you cannot give any other source? Now that is the punchline!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

Are you saying there are not essentials to be part of the Family of God?

Actually, Dokimas, what was said is that protestants do not have such a list of essentials. Let’s just work with one example - baptism. For example, some believe that:

BAPTISM is not essential YET Mark 16:16 clearly states that Baptism is required
BAPTISM in only the name of Jesus is acceptable YET Matt 28:19 clearly states that we are to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
BAPTISM by total immersion is the only acceptable way to baptize YET the Bible says NOTHING about total immersion.

So, here we have this tremendous divergence on just one topic where it would appear to the casual observer that some uniform agreement could have been established many years ago.

In reality there are numerous areas - like every aspect of so-called Christian belief - where protestants are in continuous disagreement with one another. There are even those who doubt Christ is True God AND True man.

Chances are you will look for such a reference where at least the main stream protestants have agreed on the “essentials”. Don’t worry about getting the 20,000+ sects, cults, groups, assemblies, etc to agree - just the Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Pentecostals, and Assemblies of God. The annoying reality is that such agreements have been tried in the past - and each and every effort has failed! The reason for such repeated failure to agree on ‘essential’ doctrines is two fold: 1- who determines what is essential? and 2- who will modify their essential to ‘conform’ to the agreement? After all - every one of these organizations is the ‘true’ church.

If you think there are no essentials that mean everyone gets to heaven.

You have drawn an invalid conclusion. Christ is quite clear about those who fail to follow Him in the manner He determined will be in eternal torment where the "…worm dieth not… (Mark 9:43). But, you know, there are some protestants who don’t believe in hell, either!

If you think all catholic doctrines are essentials, then people like me have no hope of Heaven unless I become as you are, a catholic.

Actually, Dokimas, we are all to be judged individually on those things that we did and those things that we failed to do. No exceptions. In Matthew 16 we see Christ founding His Church on Peter in about the year 30AD … not coming back and refounding it in the 16th Century on Martin or John, or anyone else. You are on this list for a reason - but, you are also on this list by the Grace of God. Search your heart and be true to your conscience you will not fail if you but act that way. ​

BTW, just because you don’t agree with the answers from some of us on essentials, doesn’t mean we are incorrect.

Individual agreement is not essential for truth to exist - there is, however, this problem of finding the illusive ‘essential’ that keeps on hiding…

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, c_martyr,

While it may sound good to be aloof from the obvious disunity and clamoring in dissent over One God - it does seem to be the 2 ton elephant in the room! It won’t go away by just ignoring it and wishing it will go away. But, just to let you know that others have concerned themselves with this quesion - and, here’s an answer! How does 33,000 in 238 countries sound? Here is the link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism

First, it needs to be understood what constitutes a Protestant. Then from there, maybe you can figure out how many denomonations consists within Prostestantism.

I thought you were going to provide us with a definition. So, please, just so we are on the same page, how would you define the term “Protestant” (now, if you want to use I provided that would be fine … but, you need to do something… )

This kind of research is not my interest nor my responsibility. Rather this is your responsibility, and would be to your advantage, seeing how your whole apologetic argumentation seems to depend upon the number of our denominations.

Actually, c_martyr, the multiplicity of denominations all clamoring to be considered the Chruch founded by Christ (Matt 16 does clearly identify Peter … and then there his successor Benedict XVI) or does your Bible have a section where Christ returned in the 16th Century and RE-founded His Church on Martin or John or someone else.

The essence of Catholic apologtetics is that we follow Christ in the manner He defined - through the Church He established on Peter and his successors. Everything else - including the Bible you are hold - stems from this.

God bless

 

[Dokimas]

Hi, Dokimas,

Interesting. Good points. Welcome to the conversation.

I was wondering why my statements are small and your’s are so big?

 

[PRmerger]

A charismatic catholic ‘service’ is different that a traditional catholic ‘service’. Sure there are similar aspects, but they are different. You are a stickler for sameness (your continued reference to 40,000 differences).

Again, Dokimas, you are confusing orthopraxy with orthodoxy. The* practice* of praying in tongues is not in conflict with any teaching of Catholicism; nor is the* practice* of praying in Latin in conflict with any teaching of Catholicism.

 

[PRmerger]

here’s an answer! How does 33,000 in 238 countries sound? Here is the link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism

That source looks like we’re good to go.

33,000 different Christian denominations it is. :sad_yes:

Each with different doctrines, despite reading the very same Scriptures (ok, give or take 7 books). Each refusing to submit to any central authority–or submitting to a fallible governing body.

 

[Church_Militant]

So, that said, the “cannon” that has been continiously changed and added to.

Really? The last one that I heard about was in the mid 1800s when a Bible society decided to remove the Deuterocanonical books from the Word of God as a cost cutting measure. No authority, no basis in either the Bible itself or church history, just economics.

I read about many practices and doctrine you do not find in the bible.

Okay, so by all means show me where the Bible specifically tells us that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found in it? We’ve discussed this at least twice. It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? and It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II) and you might want to read through them both before you try to go there.

The only thing infallably writ is the Word of God itself.

Really? Then why don’t all n-Cs agree in all aspects if they are all reading an infallible series of books? Where does the Bible make that claim for itself?

So this is why you don’t blindly follow a religion and priests but test it against scripture.

Let me know when you find us blindly following anyone. You’d have better luck trying to herd cats than getting the majority of Catholics to do that and especially here at CAF where we know the Bible and all the Deposit of Faith, which is precisely why we are Catholics.

It seems nowadays so many people are testing scripture against ritual and man made rules.

Yeah well, like I said, when you can show us where the Bible specifically states that all we believe and practice has to be found in it then maybe you can start. Until then, you’re trying to make us conform to an unscriptural standard and modern new wind of doctrine of men.

Unfortunatly so many people Catholics and protestants allike are throwing out truth for lies because the God of the Bible is a fiend of Self (which includes works that one can boast about).

Well when you can make your case as being scriptural then you might win a hearing, but having dialoged with a lot of n-Cs about all this, I’m not gonna hold my breath.

• Refuting the fundamental modern error of Sola Scriptura.
• Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?
• The Eucharist IS Scriptural
• My Testimony

 

[dyluck]

If the laying of hands which is called Holy Orders. is not just for Popes, Priests, and Bishops but also for all Children of God, then why are we not all called to be Priests, Bishops, and Popes etc?

1 Tim 5 I want you to read it carefully. Notice who the audience is. It is Timothy, nether an elder nor a pastor but a minister appointed by Paul to assit in establishing the order of churches.
Now, my question to you is, if you are indeed redeemed by God, recreated in the image of Christ. Do you, a professing christian, not have the authory in the name of Jesus to also lay your hands on another?.. Why is it that you feel that this is reserved for priests and popes?

Jesus said many times “you of little faith”. So the faith in the laying on of hands was for healing, spiritual gifts, holy spirit etc etc. That with faith you can move a mountain? So, you do not have any authority to come from an infant to a teacher? Basically it doesn’t take seminary for you to be mature in the word at teach your fellow believers.

Hebrews 5:11-14, a body of believers are being addressed to BE TEACHERS not just specfic people.

Hebrews 6

1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.

Laying on of hands is an ELEMENTARY princapal of Christianity. So, this is reserved for the priest or pope?

The elders in the church are in place because of their maturity in Christ and they lead hard example filled lives (although not perfect). They answer to much more before God only because they lead and have the potential to lead astray; however, all of us are called to spread the gospel… sharing the Gospel is more important that anything we could do on this earth. This is not reserved for Priests.

 

[dyluck]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Not only do Catholics say it, Jesus says its too

Tell me where in the bible it says that the people are infallable and tell me where the pope is infallable in the bible. Which pope was it that insituted infallability in the pope? It cerianly wasn’t the early popes…

 

[PRmerger]

Tell me where in the bible it says that the people are infallable and tell me where the pope is infallable in the bible. Which pope was it that insituted infallability in the pope? It cerianly wasn’t the early popes…

If you believe that everything written in Matthew’s Gospel is inerrant, full of truth, inspired, then you believe that Matthew, a mere man, was infallible.

If you believe that everything written in Mark’s Gospel is inerrant, full of truth, inspired, then you believe that Mark, a mere man, was infallible.

If you believe that everything written in Luke’s Gospel is inerrant, full of truth, inspired, then you believe that Luke, a mere man, was infallible.

If you believe that everything written in John’s Gospel is inerrant, full of truth, inspired, then you believe that John, a mere man, was infallible.

So, clearly, you believe, dyluck, that mere men are capable of being infallible?

(BTW, where in Scripture does it say this?)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dyluck,

Glad you asked! Let me offer an explanation but remember, the Inspired Word of God is God talking to us through human writers - it is not a text book where you flip to a page and THERE is your answer in the words you are willing to accept. A prayer to the Holy Spirit prior to opening the Bible is important. The prayer is to open both our hearts and minds so that we are receptive to God’s Word - not that He is receptive to our focus.

And, for a much better understanding of this matter, here is a link you may find helpful in understanding the Catholic position from a Catholic perspective as opposed to trying to understand the Catholic position from the protestant reformed perspective. If you are sincere in having your questions answered, go to this link: catholicbible101.com/thouartpeter.htm Look down the topic column on the left and you will find a list of the subjects covered - and Papal Infallability is listed!

Tell me where in the bible it says that the people are infallable

There is no place in the Bible where God says to a group of people, “You are infallable”. But, you knew that already, eh? So, take a look at what He did say and then connect the dots. So, go to Matthew 16 and read the entire chapter. You will find that Christ selected a loud-mouth, brash fisherman who probably did not have much formal education to lead THE CHURCH OF CHRIST - and that would be the Catholic Church.

Now, just how is this going to happen - especially, when you get to Matt 16:23 you see that Christ’s newly appointed leader - the one (not the other 11) with the keys - shoots his mouth off and Christ calls him a Devil! Oh, and as Catholics we believe that from all eternity, God knew Peter would deny Him three times - yet He still selected Peter. So, if you want examples of incredible human fraility - Peter can deliver on this 100%!

and tell me where the pope is infallable in the bible.

Now, this is where you have to connect the dots. Give it a try - I have confidence in you. Since God told Peter he was in charge (the keys to the kingdom were given to him … there were not 11 copies to be handed out later) and WHATEVER Peter bound or unbound on earth - that same thing happened in heaven - how could Peter lead those who want to follow Christ - away from Christ? This did not mean that Peter was perfect - in fact, over and ovrer again, Peter proves just how human he is! What it does mean is that Peter - and his successors - are guided by the Holy Spirit - the Spirit promised by Christ to be always with His Churcht to keep it from falling into the Gates of Hell (and the error that would cause). Christ was not playing a game with either Peter or with us - for example, he was not trying to see a new Lexus for $1 !!! but without tires and each tire cost $50,000 and could only be bought from this saleman. Either you believe Christ is God and is ALL KNOWING AND ALL POWERFUL - and make this promise stick - or, Christ is a fraud and we are all sorry fools who need to get a life.

Which pope was it that insituted infallability in the pope? It cerianly wasn’t the early popes…

So, let’s put this infallability question to work! Go to Acts 15 and prayerfully read the chapter. Actually, it would be helpful to read Chapter 14 to get a feel for what is coming next. The infant Catholic Church was being torn apart by those who insisted that the Law of Moses still had to followed - especially with regards to circumcision. A heated discussion had preceeded Peter getting up and deciding the issue under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yes, James spoke after Peter - but, note, he did not argue with Peter’s decision - he accepted it. If the Bible (which at that time consisted of ONLY the OT had been consulted - guess what - everything in it supported circumcision! So, here we have entirely new ground being broken with this brand new Church.

God bless

 

[rinnie]

Tell me where in the bible it says that the people are infallable and tell me where the pope is infallable in the bible. Which pope was it that insituted infallability in the pope? It cerianly wasn’t the early popes…

Don’t believe I ever said people were infallible. The CC teaches that the Holy Father and bishops are by CHRISTS"S WILL the successors of the Apostles as authentic teachers and witnesses of the faith. If I though the people were infallible I could possibly be a protestant and part of the Protestant Church.

Jesus promised to send the HS to those who believed in him to guide them to all truth. He PROMISED TO REMAIN with those who teach in his name until the end of time.

Jesus gave this gift to the Church. Humans by nature are capable of falling to error. Faith does not give belivers certain knowledge to everything. Only God is infalilble and he gave his Church a share in the light of his own knowledge of the faith. THe whole Church believes instructed by CHrist and those who he has sent, and strenghtened by the Holy Spirit.

Christ gave the Church the infallibility to proclaim the gospel faithfully. The authentic teachers of the Church are not infallible in all things. No one here ever claimed they were. We only claim what God promised that they are infallible when they teach in Christ’s name.

You must not have understood or read the book of acts. acts 15:1-2 shows you the authority of what is said there at the council. (get it the acts of the apostles)

It met at a time of crisis in the early Chruch confident that Christ and his HS was working in them. ACts 15:28 It has seemed good to the HS and to us, they rejoiced in this gift of God that freed his people from anxieties in crucially important matters of faith.

Trust me this is just not another thing us Catholics make up.(as we get accuse of doing) It like prego ITS IN THERE. This infallibility has been with the Church from Pentecost on. This is a teaching from the beginning of time in the Church until the present time. Jesus promised that he would give them the words until the end of time.

May take some time and study acts then you will see it for yourself:shrug:

 

[rinnie]

1 Tim 5 I want you to read it carefully. Notice who the audience is. It is Timothy, nether an elder nor a pastor but a minister appointed by Paul to assit in establishing the order of churches.
Now, my question to you is, if you are indeed redeemed by God, recreated in the image of Christ. Do you, a professing christian, not have the authory in the name of Jesus to also lay your hands on another?.. Why is it that you feel that this is reserved for priests and popes?

Jesus said many times “you of little faith”. So the faith in the laying on of hands was for healing, spiritual gifts, holy spirit etc etc. That with faith you can move a mountain? So, you do not have any authority to come from an infant to a teacher? Basically it doesn’t take seminary for you to be mature in the word at teach your fellow believers.

Hebrews 5:11-14, a body of believers are being addressed to BE TEACHERS not just specfic people.

Hebrews 6

1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.

Laying on of hands is an ELEMENTARY princapal of Christianity. So, this is reserved for the priest or pope?

The elders in the church are in place because of their maturity in Christ and they lead hard example filled lives (although not perfect). They answer to much more before God only because they lead and have the potential to lead astray; however, all of us are called to spread the gospel… sharing the Gospel is more important that anything we could do on this earth. This is not reserved for Priests.

Simple because in Matt 18:18 Jesus gives the Apostles the power to legislate. If this was not needed why did he do it?

Matt 18:17 Jesus gives the APOSTLES the power to discipline. (where did Jesus give this power to you?)

1 Cor 11:24 Jesus five the APOSTLES the power to offer sacrifice? Where is your power to offer sacrifice.

John 20:23 Jesus gives the APOSTLES the power to forgive sin, Can you forgive my sin and offer me absolution for my sin. Can you bind on earth what is bound in heaven?

Now you show me. Oh and remember SCRIPTURE PLEASE

 

[rinnie]

1 Tim 5 I want you to read it carefully. Notice who the audience is. It is Timothy, nether an elder nor a pastor but a minister appointed by Paul to assit in establishing the order of churches.
Now, my question to you is, if you are indeed redeemed by God, recreated in the image of Christ. Do you, a professing christian, not have the authory in the name of Jesus to also lay your hands on another?.. Why is it that you feel that this is reserved for priests and popes?

Jesus said many times “you of little faith”. So the faith in the laying on of hands was for healing, spiritual gifts, holy spirit etc etc. That with faith you can move a mountain? So, you do not have any authority to come from an infant to a teacher? Basically it doesn’t take seminary for you to be mature in the word at teach your fellow believers.

Hebrews 5:11-14, a body of believers are being addressed to BE TEACHERS not just specfic people.

Hebrews 6

1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.

Laying on of hands is an ELEMENTARY princapal of Christianity. So, this is reserved for the priest or pope?

The elders in the church are in place because of their maturity in Christ and they lead hard example filled lives (although not perfect). They answer to much more before God only because they lead and have the potential to lead astray; however, all of us are called to spread the gospel… sharing the Gospel is more important that anything we could do on this earth. This is not reserved for Priests.

Sorry but you may want to read act 20:17-35 It is here Timothy’s task in Ephesus is outlined. He is indeed a presbyter of the Church. Timothy is instructed to restrain false and useless teaching. These letters are not addressed to congregations but to those who shepherd congregations. (latin prestores) These letters were first named Pastoral Epistles in the 18 century because they are concerned with the work of a PASTOR in caring for the community or communities under his charge. I have no idea what you are talking about? Where you feel that this authority is addressed to the people and not the Pastors in the Church?

We are all called to spread the good news, No one deny’s that. But guess I will wait for you to show me the scripture I asked for. Then we can have a real debate.