Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[PRmerger]

Thanks.

Yeah. And one more thing…I’m pretty sure it was me who extended a friendship offer to *you. *

So no more “poor pitiful picked on Protestant” paradigm. Not buying it.

 

[Dokimas]

Yeah. And one more thing…I’m pretty sure it was me who extended a friendship offer to *you. *

So no more “poor pitiful picked on Protestant” paradigm. Not buying it.

Thanks.

You’re wrong. This is not a protestant issue. As a so called friend I’m sure you’d remember I don’t call myself protestant. I’m not protesting anything. I sure do disagree with some things. I’m a Christian and what you and others do is not persecution. I mention what I do for two reasons. FYI and because it gets tiring. If you need to keep speaking to me in the mannor you do, go right ahead.

 

[guanophore]

 Narrow is the way which leads to life.  I stand behind that 100%

It is very Catholic of you to say that!

  Catholics say that their church is infalable that their teachers are infallible like the pope.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the gift of infallibility.

    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.

That is exactly why the gift of infallibility is needed.

   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.

It is good that you know this. I hope you will be able to apply this principle to your modern theology, which is itself a result of just such introductions.

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.

You will have to explain what you mean by this. If you are talking about the canon of Scripture, it has not changed since it was ratified by the Catholic Church in 382. At least, until your spiritual ancestors decided to remove some of the books.

If by “cannon” you are referring to the Teachings of the Church, these cannot be changed or added to either. The deposit of faith was made once for all, and public revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle.

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

I agree that the Word of God is infallible, but the portion of that Word that exists in Scripture cannot be infallible, because the quality of infallibility belongs only to persons, not writings, however Holy.

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

This is definitely good advice. The only difficulty with it is that each one interprets scripture according to his own education and experience (or lack of it) so that there are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons!

 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).

I am sorry that I am unable to follow your point here.

 

[PRmerger]

As a so called friend

That’s hurtful.

I’m sure you’d remember I don’t call myself protestant. I’m not protesting anything. I sure do disagree with some things.

Sorry. I never heard you say that before. Perhaps you’ve had this conversation with someone else? But I will never call you Protestant again if you find that offensive, or if you don’t relate to that term. Non-Catholic Christian, then?

(BTW, “poor pitiful picked on Protestant paradigm” just sounded better than “poor pitiful picked on Non-Catholic Christian paradigm”. Alliteration and all that! )

I’m a Christian and what you and others do is not persecution.

Thank you. I don’t think anyone here ever thought what we were doing was “persecution.”

If you need to keep speaking to me in the mannor you do, go right ahead.

What are you even talking about, Dokimas? We’re having a dialogue and I’m not “speaking to you in any ‘*manner’ *” except how we’ve always spoken to each other Sheesh!

I think you are confusing the message with the messenger. The message we are bringing you–the truth: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:60)–is uncomfortable for you to hear.

But don’t confuse your feelings for the message, which you don’t like, with us.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Timothy was a bishop, which required that he first be a presbyter, and of course he was a Pastor! The whole of Paul’s letters to him are about his duties as a pastor! He was probably the youngest person ordained to such an office, and had difficulty that he was shepherding some who were older than himself, which is why Paul counselled him not to be concerned about his youthfulness.

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?

In the sense you are speaking of, no. Ordination is done within the Apostolic Succession, and is only valid when done by those persons to whom authority was given.

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.

We can pray the prayer of faith for all these things, but the authority that belongs to the priesthood of all believers is a different level of authority than those of the ministerial priests.

That with faith you can move a mountain? So, you do not have any authority to come from an infant to a teacher?

I think you are confusing faith with authority. There are many people that are very faithful, and able to teach others also. There are also people who have been authorized to do certain things. The Apostolic authority is what prevents every person of faith from striking out on their own. It is to ensure unity and adherance to the Truth.

 Basically it doesn't take seminary for you to be mature in the word at teach your fellow believers.

I hope not.

However, maturity and the ability to teach others does not equate to the authority to ordain.

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

All teachers are to be subject to their pastoral authority.

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 believers are to understand the basics of the sacramental life, including ordination. The authority to ordain belongs in the apostolic succession. Understanding this fact is elementary.

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.

You are right, we are all called to evangelize. It is the duty of the priest to equip the saints for the work of the ministry.

You have the correct understanding of the reason for elders, it seems that you are just separated with the authority structure set up by Christ.

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…

I think you misunderstand the gift of infallibility. Jesus instituted infallibility. His Church needs this so that it can fulfill His intention that she be led into all Truth.

 

[dyluck]

And clearly, Catholics baptizing infants shows that we believe God’s salvation is totally and completely a gift–for what work could this cute little babe do to “earn” his salvation? It is offered even to infants who can do no work to “earn” his salvation.

right, the baby can’t do anything but the other people who are baptizing the baby feel if they don’t baptize it then the baby will be in hell if it dies. Men actions = works. Doesn’t have to be baby’s works for someone to be in danger of superceeding God’s soverigenty with men’s will. In this case, seemingly leaving God out of the decision making part of the picture.

 

[PRmerger]

right, the baby can’t do anything but the other people who are baptizing the baby feel if they don’t baptize it then the baby will be in hell if it dies.

Are you certain that this is a teaching of the CC, dyluck? If so, could you please cite a Catholic source that says “if they don’t baptize it then the baby will be in hell if it dies.”

(A legitimate source, of course. Not something from a :whacky: ex-Catholic who’s created his own website of what he* thinks* is Catholic doctrine. Something from vatican.va would be good!)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

There are several major problems with your response… Let me see if I can help you with them.

I like your insurance analogy. That’s why I believe children are ‘grandfathered’ in by the love and grace of God without baptism until they can deside for themselves.

This is really a shame - not only have you misapplied the idea I gave you as a form of ‘covering your bet’ but, you have misuesed the term ‘grandfathered’! [When one is ‘grandfathered’ into something it is because they are ALREADY doing it, and the rules or requriements or credentials have changed. New people entering the field will have to comply with these changes - but, not the ones already doing this. You just can’t get much ‘newer’ then an embryo or a fetus!

The basic idea, Dokimas, is that God has given us a directive and it is our resonsibility to follow that Great Commission as best we can. Let’s take a look at Matt 28:18-20

18
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Note: there is no age restriction in the Great Commission. Christ has universal power (heaven and earth) and He obviously wants as many people as possible in the Kingdom of Heaven. It is not restricted - all are welcomed if the requriement of baptism is met. There is no scriptural basis for putting a limitation on Christ’s open welcome.

The view you have presented appears to presume on God’s mercy, “I will keep to my view and not follow God’s order and hope for the best.” The Catholic Church - the one founded on Peter in Matt 16 - has always baptized infants. The Catholic Church prays for God’s mercy on the unborn and infants (actually, it prays for everyone) who dies without the Sacrament of Baptism. These people were not baptized through willful refusal, but because no one could baptize them before they died.

Also, of the thousands that were baptized in the NT, only 5 households are mentioned where all were baptized. The odds are very good that those 5 households did not have children at the time of the baptism.

Where to begin with this myopic view of the God’s Love…

The first error is that this presentation implies that only things specifically written in the Bible either exist or are valid. The Bible makes no such claim - in fact, it makes claims that are just the opposite! Christ tells us that He has more things to tell his Apostles but, they can not bear it now. St. John tells us that not everything that happened has been written down. St. Paul tells his readers that they are to keep to what he TOLD THEM (not just wrote to them). No doubt about it - the Bible has a lot… it just does not have everything.

According to this constricted view you are providing - nothing really has happened since John wrote his last letter - and the Book of Revelations has not taken effect yet. There has been no growth in Christianity and in our understanding of Christ. This view totally ignores all that took place after St. John died. A big item is there was NO BIBLE in 100AD. Just how do you think you got the Bible you are holding (make that the abridged Bible you are holding…)?

Just where do you get the numbers to back up the statement that none of these five households had any children? This is a total fabrication designed to fit this unBiblical view that infants can not be baptized. The odds are great that out of five ‘households’ (master, immediate family, servants/slaves and their families) there is at least one infant/child. You could not possibly have the data to categorically make and substantiate your statement of no children in any of the households. Just look at your own neighborhood and pick the first five houses - no kids? no grandkids? no workers (housekeeper, gardner), friends coming over to visit with kids?

Bottom line: Christ wants all of us to be baptized and through the power He has given His Chruch, this Sacrament of joining the Family of God is available to all regardless of age or mental condition (I guess that since the profoundly mentally retarded can not take a stand for Christ they are also excluded from God’s Family according to your view?)

God bless

 

[rinnie]

Wrong: I don’t reject the apostles authority. I disagree with your understanding of what that means. Quite a big difference.

Fair enough. Now where does my understanding differ from what the Apostles taught?

 

[rinnie]

rinnie, I struggle a little with the segregation of the CC to the direction of God’s power and authority. Basically, in a sense, I get the feeling that CC do not believe Protestants are in line of salvation or authroity under of Jesus.

Well dyluck lets put it this way. No Catholic can or should judge anyones salvation. No one should only God can. Now that’s Catholic teaching.

Now second if the truth is revealed to you and you reject that truth then you are in trouble. So to make it short. If you know the teaching of the RCC but you reject it and turn away from it because you do not like this or that your soul is in grave danger.

So let me put it this way. I know that bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. I know this, I can never reject it. So I can not go to a protestant church and agree that communion is just a symbol. So you see what I mean?

Now I do not believe that anyone but a Priest can do this without Holy Orders. I am sorry no disrespect but I don’t. And I have never heard a Protestant Preacher say he could do this either. I could be wrong. I know very little of the Prot. faith.

Now Christ exercised the Priesthood through the Apostles. Then the Apostles ORDAINED Priests, Bishops, and deacons to succeed them. Acts 14:23 20:17 Phil 1:1 Tit 1:5-9

Now we see it today by the laying of hands and words of concecration the essential rite or ordination. Only a bishop can validly ordain a man as a Priest.

Now I could go out tommorow and start my own Church. I could. But I would not have valid Sacraments. Do you see what I am saying?

I could marry you and say you are now married in the Church. But are you? Where did I get that right?

Do not get me wrong. I love Protestant Preachers and love the work they do. BUt they cannot forgive my sin, they cannot marry me in the CC. They cannot change bread and wine into the Living Jesus Christ. If I am wrong please correct me. But that is my problem. Yes Authority. And it was passed from the Apostles.

But please do not hate me but I told you the truth as I believe it. I respect the Protestant faith for the truth they do have. But I could never be a part of the truth they do not have.

But I would never judge their salvation, and pray they would never judge mine. But I belong in the RCC and always will. If it would come down to me and the Pope so be it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dyluck,

Is there anything else you can throw in to further mislead your mislead friend? Let’s try and approach this in a biblical manner and see if we can straighten it out…

Oh and this will need to be divided into two parts…sorry about the length… Part 1 of 2

Dokimas, can I interject/ support you here for a sec. Lets say, by chance, that baptism by water or a lack of baptism by water or any acts of man had an impact on one’s ability to be saved. Wouldn’t then works be part of our salvation?

Christ is quite clear in educating Nicodemus on the necessity (not the option) of Baptism John 3:1-21

Christ is quite clear that He wants everyone Baptized and to be His disciple Matt 28:19

And, yes, WORKS ARE part of our salvation!!! Matt 25:37 The real issue is: we need both Faith AND works! Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4).

We are not saved through ANY goodness on our part or in keeping any WORKS OF THE (MOSAIC) LAW - we are saved by the Grace of God through Christ Jesus - and it was He who told us to love our neighbor THROUGH WORKS. You know, Dyluck, somehow I just do not see anyone interrupting God at the Last Judgment and saying something like, “Lord, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are WORKS and we are not saved by WORKS.” And God responds with something like, “No you are not saved by your own works - but you are condemned to hell for failing to do the works I told you do.”

Would God, the creator of this universe, require that we have caviets to salvation if we are too young, or converted at the last minute before one died and was unble to be water baptized?

In a word: YES! And, here are two examples:
1.) When the five foolish virgins finally returned with oil in their lamps, the Bridegroom did not open the door and say something like, “You were pretty good girls after all” and let them into the wedding feast. The door was shut! (Matt 25:8-16)

2.) When the Bridegroom went around to visit with His guests He did not hand the man who had no wedding garment such a garment to wear. The Bridegroom asked why he did not have what was required and then threw the man out. That door was shut, too! (Matt 22:12)

It escapes me why you insist on these mental gymnastics to try and talk around an obvious requirement for baptism. Parents do good things for their children - even evil parents do not give their child a scorpion when they ask for bread. We do a tremendous good thing for our children by baptising them and making them members of God’s Family. Your efforts at justifying why you refuse to do this - and encourage others to do so - will be addressed at the White Throne. There is no Biblical statement that infants and children can not be baptized - so, why do you try and re-write scripture that way?

CONTINUED…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dyluck,

Part 2 of 2

I know the bible says that we must be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven; however, Jesus makes this deciaration. My question is, how is it that Jesus baptizes? by water or by spirit? Didn’t John the baptist not say “there is one who is coming that baptizes with the holy spirit / fire”. Is not the baptism of the holy spirit not a change of one’s nature, death to sinful nature and a resurection of a new man?

How can you possibly start off a sentence by claiming to know, “…we must be baptized…” and then stick in a “…however…”? “However” you don’t believe Chrsit? “However” you do not want to follow what He says? Go back to Christ educating Nicodemus as recorded in John 3 - you will note that Christ does not use the word “However” with this old man. There is nothing recorded in the Bible that Jesus baptized anyone - and you draw the conclusion that since Christ did not do this it is not important?! Christ gave His Apostles the Great Commission - re-read the last chapter of Matthew and you will note that “However” is not used. Really, if you do not want to be baptized or to baptize others or would rather call into question those who do follow Christ’s instructions - that’s fine… just be ready to tell it to the Judge on the White Throne when your time comes.

If it is spirit then how can we hold claim to when and if this occurs? I believe that baptism by water is a public declairation of what God already did which was regenerated you / Romans 6. I believe the baptism that has to do with salvation is the spiritual one (the regeneration part).

You know, the only problem with this - and, even using the limited standards of the Bible Alone - it is UN-Biblical! If you are referring to Romans 6:1-5 - then you have totally misread what Paul has said. Here is the verse:

1
What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not!
2
How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
3
Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4
We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.
5
For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection.

If there is something else in Romans 6 - then please clairify. But, these verse have nothing to do with: 1- prohibiting the baptism of infants, 2- baptism being an option or 3- Christ being recorded as having not baptized anyone, 4- baptism can only be done in public

Baptism by water cannot be a piece of requirement of salvation because the bible implicitly says that we cannot boast of our own works.

Well, there it is - your statement that Baptism can NOT be a requirement when Christ says it is. (review scriptural references given in this post if you still have doubt). Really, Dyluck, you are heading in a direction that is totally contrary to that set by Christ. Either you believe what He said, or you don’t - but, please, don’t claim to believe and then refuse to believe His words. This makes no sense at all! The Christ you appear to want is the Christ you have created (or, has been created for you) but, this is not the Christ contained even in your abridged Bible.

God bless

 

[dyluck]

It is very Catholic of you to say that!
You will have to explain what you mean by this. If you are talking about the canon of Scripture, it has not changed since it was ratified by the Catholic Church in 382. At least, until your spiritual ancestors decided to remove some of the books.

Well, I’m no historian by any stretch (something I am currently trying to rectify), but I do believe that the books in question were ADDED to the original old testament already defined by Hebrews. There were added during the same time you mentioned and of course contested for quite some time before RCC declaired them sacred and inspired. Around the same time that the reformation decided to go back to the original texts before they were added.

This is definitely good advice. The only difficulty with it is that each one interprets scripture according to his own education and experience (or lack of it) so that there are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons!

Which is an unfortunate thing. I do believe that interpertation should come with much experience in the way the bible is written, the holy spirit most of all and the ability to back it up. This is why I appreciate expository preaching more-so then topical because one has less change of missing big key items. IMO people scower the bible for things they want God to be and end up worshiping the wrong god versus knowing the real God and rightly worshiping Him as He has revealed himself in the word.

I am sorry that I am unable to follow your point here.

umm, basically everyone wants to go to heaven right? The problem is nobody wants God to be there when they get there. The problem is "Self "and people find themselves teachers and doctrines that they accept to suit their own lives. People want to be their own God and never submit to His will. The point at the end of the day, so much religion out there an not enough reliance on God and His promises. Honestly sitting back and thinking about everything you have to do to be forgiven, to enter church to do this and do that. Its just leaving Christ out of the equation without realizing it. We may feel that we are glorifying God in our action but many people’s motives are the earning of the Right to be with God verses Jesus earning that right and we obey his command simply because that is who we are now. Hope that makes sense

 

[dyluck]

Hi,
Is there anything else you can throw in to further mislead your mislead friend?
A slightly presumptious statment wouldn’t you say?

Let’s try and approach this in a biblical manner and see if we can straighten it out…

 

[dyluck]

Part 2 of 2

You know, Dyluck, somehow I just do not see anyone interrupting God at the Last Judgment and saying something like, “Lord, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are WORKS and we are not saved by WORKS.” And God responds with something like, “No you are not saved by your own works - but you are condemned to hell for failing to do the works I told you do.”

Actually we see many people will be entering the judgement of God thinking they were saved, clearly arguing with God’s judgemeent by analyzing their works, yet found out that Jesus didn’t know them at all.
Matt 7:20-23

It escapes me why you insist on these mental gymnastics to try and talk around an obvious requirement for baptism.

I don’t believe I once said that there wasn’t a requirement for baptism. I just believe there is one that came greater that baptises by the holy spirit.
I don’t deny water baptsim at all. Just not a saving act but as a public declariation of your repentance and a declairation of what ALREADY happend to you by the holy spirit in resurecting a dead man (spiritually / baptism of the holy spirit).

We do a tremendous good thing for our children by baptising them and making them members of God’s Family.

Nobody has the right to make anyone a member of God’s family but Christ Himself.

John 5:21 " 21"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. "
This is backed up by the next few verse which corilates this, not with physical resurection only, but judgement / soverign choice.

There is no Biblical statement that infants and children can not be baptized - so, why do you try and re-write scripture that way?

caught ya, who says you can re-write scripture and say you must baptize a baby?
Just kidding - Its a moot point at the end of the day anyway because nothing is stoping you from doing it but what significance does it really have to the childs salvation anyway? Do it for the sake of doing it, not because you believe it’s a saving action, becase no where in the bible does it say you can ensure your child’s salvation by an act of your own. The only one with that kind of authority is God.

I’m going to move away from the term “protestant” too btw. Many Christian churchs do what you call a “dedication” which is simliar in a sense (anointing of oil or just a prayer sometimes) but simply it is a parental declairation, publicaly, that they will raise their children in an example filled christian home. Not in the bible, yes, but not an action that is to be salvation deciding/bearing either.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
It is very Catholic of you to say that!
You will have to explain what you mean by this. If you are talking about the canon of Scripture, it has not changed since it was ratified by the Catholic Church in 382. At least, until your spiritual ancestors decided to remove some of the books.

dyluck:
Well, I’m no historian by any stretch (something I am currently trying to rectify), but I do believe that the books in question were ADDED to the original old testament already defined by Hebrews. There were added during the same time you mentioned and of course contested for quite some time before RCC declaired them sacred and inspired. Around the same time that the reformation decided to go back to the original texts before they were added.

A lot of books were added over the course of years in the OT. The reformers decided to go back to the original texts before they were added? Tell me something,how many books did the OT contain,the one Jesus read and quoted from?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dyluck,

I obviously lack whatever it takes to respond to your 1st post of this 2-part response. So, I will try my best to address Part 2 of 2.

Part 2 of 2

Actually we see many people will be entering the judgement of God thinking they were saved, clearly arguing with God’s judgemeent by analyzing their works, yet found out that Jesus didn’t know them at all. Matt 7:20-23

Yes, those who did not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, etc did sound rather surprised.

I don’t believe I once said that there wasn’t a requirement for baptism. I just believe there is one that came greater that baptises by the holy spirit.
I don’t deny water baptsim at all. Just not a saving act but as a public declariation of your repentance and a declairation of what ALREADY happend to you by the holy spirit in resurecting a dead man (spiritually / baptism of the holy spirit).

Wellllllllllllllllll… I guess I just misunderstood ya. Personally, I am delighted that you do not deny water baptism. But, nat a, “…saving act…” and a “…public declaration…” eh? Just what do you think Christ was telling Nicodemus that he must be born again - Christ did not offer this as an option or some type of add-on accessory. This is entry level material for getting into the Kingdom of Heaven. And, then at the end of Matthew’s Gospel - Christ tells the Apostles to go into the whole world and make everyone His disciple. People can be baptized in private - it is not necessary to have an audience.

But, the understanding is God is not bound by the Commandments He gives to us. If He chooses to do something differently - He is free to do so. Our response to God is obedience to His clearly given commands. Early on (Matt 16) He gave the command to Peter to keep the Keys and that whatever Peter (and his successors) bound was bound and if they reversed a binding that was OK, too - everything was noted in both heaven and earth. God gave us baptism as the initiation into His Family - and He wants a big Family. God gave us the Catholic Church and this this Church has the Power of God to make law and policy as to what is proper and appropriate.

Nobody has the right to make anyone a member of God’s family but Christ Himself.

John 5:21 " 21"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. " This is backed up by the next few verse which corilates this, not with physical resurection only, but judgement / soverign choice.

You are off on a tangent. We have already established that Christ has Universal Power - He is God. Christ commanded that all be baptized - and brought into the Family of God. This right has been given (re-read the last chapter of Matthew) and is known as the Great Commission.

caught ya, who says you can re-write scripture and say you must baptize a baby?
Just kidding - Its a moot point at the end of the day anyway because nothing is stoping you from doing it but what significance does it really have to the childs salvation anyway? Do it for the sake of doing it, not because you believe it’s a saving action, becase no where in the bible does it say you can ensure your child’s salvation by an act of your own. The only one with that kind of authority is God.

Hardly. The point of a law is to either identify what is to be done or what is forbidden. The Great Commission did not set age limits on who God wants in His Family. Since this is true - the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate from scripture that some people (e.g., infants/children) are excluded from this command. Save your breath - there is no scripture that meet the limitations you are trying to put on God.

The act is an act commanded by God - it is not an ‘…act of your own…’ Here is a link that provides you with the answers you say you are looking for: catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp Do yourself a favor and read it before responding.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

right, the baby can’t do anything but the other people who are baptizing the baby feel if they don’t baptize it then the baby will be in hell if it dies.

Oh! And I just thought of another thing!

Have you ever heard of the “Holy Innocents”, dyluck?

These are the babes mentioned in Matt 2:16-18.

They were not baptized.

Do you know where the CC says these non-baptized babies ended up eternally?

 

[Dokimas]

That’s hurtful.

It was truthful from my perspective.

Sorry. I never heard you say that before. Perhaps you’ve had this conversation with someone else? But I will never call you Protestant again if you find that offensive, or if you don’t relate to that term. Non-Catholic Christian, then?

It’s not offensive. It’s just more accurate. I’m a Christian, in my own mind and hopefully in God’s mind too.

(BTW, “poor pitiful picked on Protestant paradigm” just sounded better than “poor pitiful picked on Non-Catholic Christian paradigm”. Alliteration and all that! )

One could see either as hurtful coming from a friend. However, I would not feel hurt. Feeling hurt is kind of a waste of emotion. (Not that I’m above wasting emotion. I do that too often.)

 

[PRmerger]

IOne could see either as hurtful coming from a friend. However, I would not feel hurt. Feeling hurt is kind of a waste of emotion. (Not that I’m above wasting emotion. I do that too often.)

Yes, you are right–I can see how that could be hurtful coming from a friend.

I apologize. It was indeed a little disrespectful. :flowers: