Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

  • Thread starter Thread starter BILL_PICK53
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You say they are different. Give us a ‘difference’ and we’ll discuss the ‘difference’ to see which category it falls into.

BTW, I’m going to bed. Talk later.
Let’s just talk about Baptism:

Some say it’s an ordinance. (Baptists)
Some say it’s a sacrament. (Lutherans)
Those are doctrinal differences.

Some say it must be done using a Trinitarian formula. (Methodists)
Some say it must be done only in Jesus’ name. (Oneness Pentecostalists)
Those are doctrinal differences as well.

Some practice infant baptism. (Episcopalians)
Some say one must wait until you are an adult. (Grace Community Church)
Those are doctrinal differences as well.

However…
Some say it has to be done by immersion.(Seventh Day Adventists)
Some say it doesn’t matter, as long as water is involved. (Presbyterian)
Those are differences in practice.

So, just with one teeny little word: baptism, found in the Bible, you can get a perplexing mixture of doctrines and practices–all from reading the very same Biblical verses. :eek:
 
Elijah was “assumed” into heaven, was he not?
And Enoch too no? There is far more biblical evidence in those accounts of assumption then Mary in which there is absolutly 0 scripture about the suposed event.
 
Well, Dyluck, let’s see how this works…😃

Actually, I read your responses very carefully. You apparently insist on presenting the Catholic position by using non-Catholic sources - and then insisting your presentation is what we believe - or - concluding that that is what we should believe (stop being Catholic and be protestant).

Now, if you want to discuss Papal Infallability, read this link: catholicbible101.com/papalinfallibility.htm and determine just what it is you object to (besides it is not what you want to hear) and make your scriptural case. This sniping about Catholic doctrine by using protesting sources is getting tedious when you fail to do some basic homework and present it in a logical manner.

Get a good night’s sleep and believe me when I say that I am looking forward to your response.

God bless
tqualey can you please quote in chunks? Its hard to respond because writing within my quote doens’t follow to the reply page. I have to go back and copy and paste everything in the reply window.
Thanks.

Thanks for the response. Im going to keep my resopnse short because I don’t feel you have really read what I wrote about Peter. And clearly the key to this discussion is “Peter” if we can get by this position you place on Peter then perhaps your thought about my view of Matt 16 would be so obscure.
Matt 16 among every other blessing of words that Jesus revealed is amazing. there is nothing I discredit in the passage except for your particular interpertation of the verse in question. Here is a previous quote from a post earlier:
 
Only people who have never read the Bible…or don’t believe what it says would deny baptism of infants.
 
And Enoch too no? There is far more biblical evidence in those accounts of assumption then Mary in which there is absolutly 0 scripture about the suposed event.
Excellent.

So we are agreed that there are Scriptural references to assumptions.
And we are agreed that there have been men who have been infallible in their writings.

You just don’t feel that the Catholic Church can include Mary as someone who’s been Assumed.
And you don’t feel that* other* men can be infallible.

Can you cite verses for this, then? Where does Scripture say that Mary died? And where does it say that men cannot be prevented from teaching error? Chapter and verse, please.
 
Hold on a minute, PRmerger,just what are you trying to do here…😃

This is the same guy that discounts Jouh 6, that Christ really did not mean we have to eat His Body and drink His Blood…

That Christ really did not put Peter in charge with the Keys to the Kingdom

That Christ did not give men the delegated Power of God to forgive sin

and a whole lot more.

If it does not conform with what he has been told - to heck with the actual words of the Bible

Really, cut him some slack … he will address the issue in earnest in front of the White Throne.

God bless
Excellent.

So we are agreed that there are Scriptural references to assumptions.
And we are agreed that there have been men who have been infallible in their writings.

You just don’t feel that the Catholic Church can include Mary as someone who’s been Assumed.
And you don’t feel that* other* men can be infallible.

Can you cite verses for this, then? Where does Scripture say that Mary died? And where does it say that men cannot be prevented from teaching error? Chapter and verse, please.
 
Excellent.

So we are agreed that there are Scriptural references to assumptions.
And we are agreed that there have been men who have been infallible in their writings.

You just don’t feel that the Catholic Church can include Mary as someone who’s been Assumed.
And you don’t feel that* other* men can be infallible.

Can you cite verses for this, then? Where does Scripture say that Mary died? And where does it say that men cannot be prevented from teaching error? Chapter and verse, please.
I will write back to you guys soon. Just on my way out the door here.

tqualey
and PRmerger. I may not follow doctrines of yours, some key things you believe I don’t find enough scripture for. Guys, i will get some passages for you.
 
I will write back to you guys soon. Just on my way out the door here.

tqualey
and PRmerger. I may not follow doctrines of yours, some key things you believe I don’t find enough scripture for. Guys, i will get some passages for you.
Hey dyluck. While you are searching for those passages could you find me the one that say everything that Jesus taught is in the bible. and if it is not in the bible it is not true.

And also what about the scripture that says all in not written in he bible and to go by the Sacred Scripture and the scripture that we have taught you by WORD OF MOUTH. We call that Sacred Tradition:D It is the same as SS you know, and just as important. Actually more sometimes because without ST you could never understand SS:D

Also lets talk about rock. Where is Peter called little rock. I never saw that. And what about Father Abraham is he little rock also then?

Because remember, and yes Jesus said he is the cornerstone. I agree with you. But he didn’t call Peter the cornerstone he said the stone that the builders rejected was indeed the cornerstone. Who did the builders reject DY it was Jesus wasn’t it.

But did he not change the Name of Abram to Abraham and does not Abraham translate into the word Rock:eek: and does Rock not translate into Father? So was Abraham not the Father in the O.T? Father Abraham was he not called?

And did Jesus not change Simon’s name into Peter? And does Peter not translate into Rock and does Rock again not translate into Father. And is the Pope not called today the Holy Father:eek: and does Father in greek not translate into Papa and does Papa not translate into Pope:eek: Papa, Pope, Holy Father, Rock see the connection here.

And isn’t it strange how the only 3 people to this day that have been called Rock was God God the Father, Abraham Father Abraham. And Peter. Papa, Pope the Holy Father. Kinda neat huh.

So we really had 3 teaches. Of course God and always God. But he left us 2 humans to kind of be in charge. Abraham in the O.T. And then Jesus in the N.T who was still God and Jesus gave Peter the keys to keep and pass on. So now instead of Abraham we have the Pope who is still called Father. Now Jesus promised he would not leave us orphans. And hades would never take over the CC. Hades is you know death. Hell is also death, death of the soul. So hades means death, and hell same thing. `Now Jesus promised us death would never end the CHurch so that means that the Pope passing to the next world could indeed hand over the keys to the kingdom which he has done forever. So we never quit having Papa or the Holy Father have we. We always have a Holy Father leading the Catholic Church just the way Jesus promised us huh. Something to think about. And remember what he told Peter. You are Peter and to you I give the keys to the kingdom what you bind on earth is bound in heaven. Guess who got the Keys:D ANd he is guarding them too. Just like Jesus asked him to.
 
Excellent.

So we are agreed that there are Scriptural references to assumptions.
And we are agreed that there have been men who have been infallible in their writings.

You just don’t feel that the Catholic Church can include Mary as someone who’s been Assumed.
And you don’t feel that* other* men can be infallible.

Can you cite verses for this, then? Where does Scripture say that Mary died? And where does it say that men cannot be prevented from teaching error? Chapter and verse, please.
Awesome! I am picking up what you are laying down here. Good Post!!😃
 
If it does not conform with what he has been told - to heck with the actual words of the Bible
'zactly. :sad_yes:

The Bible needs an authoritative interpreter, else it’s just dyluck’s fallible, non-authoritative interpretation vs another person’s fallible, non-authoritative interpretation…

and then we are left with the chaos and confusion of 33,000 different interpretations of what the Bible says. :eek:
 
tqualey
and PRmerger. I may not follow doctrines of yours, some key things you believe I don’t find enough scripture for. Guys, i will get some passages for you.
A really good one to start would be where in Scripture it says “key things you believe have to be found in Scripture”. Chapter and verse, please! 🙂
 
Hi, Dyluck,

Hold on, Dyluck - you can cathch this when you come back … but, glib responses really have no place here. 😉

This post will be divided into two parts because of its length. Part 1 of 2
I will write back to you guys soon. Just on my way out the door here.

tqualey
and PRmerger. I may not follow doctrines of yours, some key things you believe I don’t find enough scripture for.

As I appreciate the situation, Dyluck,there is just only insufficient scripture for your interest.

To my way of thinking, there is an abundance of Scripture - and, I want to just give you one example, where the scripture is there but you aren’t. Open your abridged Bible to John 6:22-69. Now, as chapters go, NONE of Gospels go to such length in describing an exchange between Christ and Jews.

The idea that Christ is actually requiring His listeners - and, by extension, His followers, to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood - was rejected by the 1st Century Jews and the 16th Century heretics. What these two groups have in common is that they refused to believe the Word of God! There really is no middle ground here because of the 18 times Christ identifies with bread - and then clearly spells out what He is saying: and He is to be eaten. The ending fact is that His 1st Century listeners understood His words, yet refused to believe and walked away effectively calling Him crazy - after seeing His Power in multiplying the loaves and fishes in the beginning of John 6.

**22
The next day, the crowd that remained across the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not gone along with his disciples in the boat, but only his disciples had left.
23
Other boats came from Tiberias near the place where they had eaten the bread when the Lord gave thanks.
24
When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus.
25
And when they found him across the sea they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26
Jesus answered them and said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled.
27
*#1- Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. **For on him the Father, God, has set his seal."
28
So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?”
29
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”
30
So they said to him, “What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do?
31
16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32
So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; #2 my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33
#3 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." *
34
So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
35
Jesus said to them,
#4"I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. *
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39
And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.”
41
The Jews murmured about him because he said,
#5 “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” *
42
and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43
Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring among yourselves.
44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
45
It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
46
Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
#6 I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
*#7 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. *

CONTINUED…🙂

God bless

Guys, i will get some passages for you.
 
Hi, Dyluck,

Hi, Dyluck,

Hold on, Dyluck - you can cathch this when you come back … but, glib responses really have no place here. 😉

This post will be divided into two parts because of its length. Part 1 of 2

51
#8 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; #9 whoever eats this bread will live forever; *#10 and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." *52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, *#11 “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” *53
Jesus said to them, #12 "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
#13 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
*#14 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. *
56
  • #15 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.*
    57
    Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, *#16 so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58
    #17 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died,
    #18 whoever eats this bread will live forever." *
    59
    These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
    60
    20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
    61
    Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
    62
    What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
    63
    It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
    64
    But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
    65
    And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
    66
    As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
    67
    Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
    68
    Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
    69
    We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
The protestant argument hangs on two faulty ideas: 1) Christ who usually spoke in metaphor - is still speaking so as to obscure His real meaning, [but, this is discredited in verse 52 - they understood exactly what was said] and 2) Verse 63: A variation on the metaphor argument - “…spirit and truth…flesh profits nothing…” is that same as saying that for the the 40 verses in this section - they mean nothing because of this verse. This issue is context - this entire section is telling the Jews (and us) that we are to eat His Flesh if we are to be with Him and His Father in Heaven. Keep on eating ordinary bread and you will die - eat My Flesh and you will live forever.

Ultimately, if we believe that Christ is God and God can do all things - what are there problems that He can hand His Body and Blood to the Apostles under the appearance of common food - tell them that it is His Body and Blood, so they understand that this is a very unique event, designed by God to give Himself to mankind - and then tell them to eat? This is the same Christ who turned water into wine - and no one has a problem with this. This is the same Christ who raised the dead - and the Jews saw this and plotted His death. This is the same Christ Who rose from the dead on the 3rd day as He proclaimed.

I would have a much easier time understanding someone like the Jews who simply refused to not believe - rather then our current group who attempts to distort these clearly spoken words, mishandle the meaning and yet claim to follow Christ. Either follow or don’t follow - but, just read the words and don’t mislead others.

God bless

Guys, i will get some passages for you.
 
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:D
Before I get started, you give me 1 verse in the entire bible that indicates a particular point. Let me point out that if it does not line up with the rest of scripture then, perhaps, you are taking the 1 verse out of context.

Lets take a look at scripture you provided:
Matt 18:17 - You take this as an apostle only command… So, you do not have the power to confront a brother about his sin I suppose (which is what this is about)?

Matt 12:15 “If your brother sins against you go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.” Now curious where you get Apostle having the power onto themselves to do dicipline. Verse 17 "17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. " (which means don’t oust him out of your church on your own accord (or the Apostles) but treat him as an unbeliever i.e. do not commune with him etc).

1 Cor 11:24 - According to your statment it appears as if the Eucharist (communion) is to be taken as a litteral body, litteral blood and a litteral re-sacrifice. This is not offering a sacrifice. Jesus did this once and for all.

Hebrews 9:25-28
25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Was Christ’s single sacrifice not enough? The communion was commanded by Jesus
This is an act of a family even between Christians whereby we remember his sacrifice (how great it is!) and Verse 26 “…you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

John 20:23 - Wow, well comparing this to even the verse stated above in Matt 12 we can take the understanding of God’s forgivness and our abililty to forgive. We are commanded to forgive one another and we have the power to forgive people if they sin against us; however, we DO NOT have the power to forgive sins against’ the Father. Let me ask you this. Did you have to die so that your brother can be Justified before you? No, so clearly the only one with the power to forgive is God.
Luke 17:3 If I took this verse at this very verse, guess what. I do have the power to forgive the sins upon the Father. Now, luckly there is verse 4 which explains what type of sin.

Your giving me versus that in their single unexorted from with abslutly no self apologetics in going over the rest of scripture to find its context and what is being said here. I take the bible word for word but I don’t take 1 verse make it my belief or live by it if I cannot find other passages to back it up.

Example of this. If Jesus came on the earth, wrote 1 Gospel himself and now we have a religion, what difference would it make over muslim, or mormons? We have 4 Gosples and 4 accounts for proof in Christ’s walk / death and resurection. So should it be with the rest of scripture.

I hope you agree that the bible never contridicts itself right? This verse indicates that NOT EVEN THE APOSTLES had the abililty to forgive the Sins.

Pharisies acknowledge that ONLY God can forgive sins.
Ok, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? ~Mark 2:7
Proof the Jesus is God Verse 17" 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ."

And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, **even as **God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you. ~Ephesians 4:32 (clearly the forgivness that we have and are commanded to do is to forgive one another the trespasses we do onto each other).

I hope that is much more meat (scripture) for the debate for now.
 
Before I get started, you give me 1 verse in the entire bible that indicates a particular point. Let me point out that if it does not line up with the rest of scripture then, perhaps, you are taking the 1 verse out of context.
This is not Biblical, dyluck. There is NOTHING in Scripture that says this is how one ought to interpret verses.

It is another man-made, non-biblical (or extra-biblical) tradition that you’ve bought into.
 
40.png
tqualey:
You guys are writing too fast for me to respond 😛

Before I respond briefly (as I am at work and difficult to get into detail like I normally like to do), I know what you said about Protestants and “metaphorically”.

You say in your post that I will thinkg that its metaphorically speaking.
Let me ask you something.

When Jesus said that he was the vine and we are the branch, are you litterally a branch and Jesus litterally a vine, or was he talking in a metaphorical sense?

Just food for thought.

Also, please tell me what the different metaphorical meanings to “Bread” / “food” are used in Catholic teachings? i.e. what about the bread. “you cannot live off of bread alone”.

Deuteronomy 8:3
He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. - hmmmmmmm

What about “milk” in this statement: Hebrews 5:12-13 ?
 
Let’s just talk about Baptism:
Some say it’s an ordinance. (Baptists)
Some say it’s a sacrament. (Lutherans)
Those are doctrinal differences.
Some say it must be done using a Trinitarian formula. (Methodists)
Some say it must be done only in Jesus’ name. (Oneness Pentecostalists)
Those are doctrinal differences as well.
Some practice infant baptism. (Episcopalians)
Some say one must wait until you are an adult. (Grace Community Church)
Those are doctrinal differences as well.
However…
Some say it has to be done by immersion.(Seventh Day Adventists)
Some say it doesn’t matter, as long as water is involved. (Presbyterian)
Those are differences in practice.
So, just with one teeny little word: baptism, found in the Bible, you can get a perplexing mixture of doctrines and practices–all from reading the very same Biblical verses.
Excellent! I always tell many the same thing about doctrinal differences. Yet all the conflicting doctrines claim to be supported by Scripture. They all cannot be right or acceptable.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyluck
Before I get started, you give me 1 verse in the entire bible that indicates a particular point. Let me point out that if it does not line up with the rest of scripture then, perhaps, you are taking the 1 verse out of context.
Okay and before we get started,where does the Bible state it had to be divided into chapters and verses?
 
This is not Biblical, dyluck. There is NOTHING in Scripture that says this is how one ought to interpret verses.

It is another man-made, non-biblical (or extra-biblical) tradition that you’ve bought into.
2 Timothy 2:15
15Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

I believe it was you that ask why can we not add to what is written/make laws outside the bible no?

Deuteronomy 4:2 2"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Please don’t read into the next statement: but nowhere in the recognized old or new testemant is the Aprocripha quoted. Catholics also do not concider these books as part of the core bible but an addition to the old testament. (one of the reasons they have a different name: deuterocanonical books? (which was never part of the Hebrew old testament). These were added in later in the church and then removed by some catholics and protestants as not being inspired by God. (God is a different person in many of these books).
Got sidetracked there but i know that was asked earlier.

Deuteronomy 12:32, Proverbs 30:5-6, Revelation 1:1-3.
“Do not go beyond what is written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6b)

Ok should we check other scriptures? 2 Tim 3:16 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"

there is another verse somewhere but it is escaping me.

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top