Why not baptize children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris-WA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Zakuska:
Hmmm Pauls a piece of Bread too and so are all the saints. I wonder if he’s french, Garlic, or perhaps a Baggett?
Click to expand...
Pathetic comments like this only reconfirm my belief in the Catholic Church. Way to go Mr. LDS “apologist.” :clapping:
 
Robert,
I agree that his comments are immature and show ignorance towards the concept of a Mystery of religion and faith. This shows his true ignorance and lack of understanding of transubstantiation, probably because he has never had communion, or know what we know and feel when we partake of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. We can forgive him of a true ignorance that he has espoused. Lets hope he is mature enough to apologize for his statements.

In Christ,
Catholic Guy
 
Dear Zakuska;

It is not surprising that you would find the doctrine of the eucharist such a hard thing to accept. The followers of Christ left him in droves after he told them that they were to eat his flesh and drink his blood. To them, it sounded much like what you mock in your response. Yet Christ made it quite clear he was NOT speaking figuratively in his “Bread of Life” discourse. He affirmed that he was speaking the truth and did not call his followers back to “explain” what he “really meant” when they left him in droves. Paul speaks eloquently when he says, “to whom shall we go.”
[48] I am the bread of life.
[49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
[52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
[59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
[60] **Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” **
[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
[62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
[64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
[66] **After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. **
[67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
[68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” (Jn 6:48-69)
Click to expand...
Do not set aside this doctrine so glibly. Spend time studying the basis for it and perhaps you will come to respect it, even if you do not accept it.
 
40.png
amgid:
The truth is that the doctrine of transubstantiation as taught by the Catholic Church is shot through. It is false. It is not biblical. The Bible makes that clear as the daylight is from the dark night:

John 6:

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Click to expand...
I think the following text from Catholic Answers explains this text pretty well. You are interpreting vs 63 to mean that Christ is saying that his flesh profiteth nothing. That’s not what he’s saying at all. And the use of “spirit” here does not mean "symbolic."In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65)
The Bible teaches us that the Sacrament is nothing more or less than memorial of the suffering and death of Christ. It is done in “remembrance of Him”:
Click to expand...
1 Corinthians 11:
Click to expand...
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Click to expand...
I think the modern English understanding of “remembrance” is causing you to misunderstand what this meant to someone in Christ’s time. The ancient word for “remembrance” didn’t mean for someone to simply repeat some symbolic action while recalling in their mind what happened in the past. No, to “remember” something meant much more–it meant to enter into the event, to participate and re-present. It was much more than just “remembering” as we understand the word today.

Old Testament symbols are types for New Testament realities. The Old Testament passover meal (symbolic) was a type for the New Testament reality (real presence). You are still stuck in symbols even though Christ has given us the real thing. Every day on every altar in every Catholic Church around the world, a miracle happens when the priest pronounces the words of consecration. That bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. Heaven touches Earth at that moment and Christ is truly present.

All the early church writings attest to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This understanding was universal and undisputed for hundreds of years until the Protestant Reformation.
 
40.png
majick275:
Well I think you did an excellent job of clarifying the LDS sacrament.
Click to expand...
Actually, what I had “clarified” was the biblical Sacrament. The LDS Sacrament is the same as the biblical Sacrament.
I think it would be good if you would read this on the Catholic view:
Click to expand...
catholic.com/library/Chr…e_Eucharist.asp
Click to expand...
That way you could see the completely different view that Catholics have on what the eucharist “does”.
Click to expand...
I did look; but I didn’t learn anything new. It is a hypocritical statement full of fudges and obfuscations. It completely smudges over John 6:63. It employs the most disingenuous and convoluted arguments to avoid admitting to the most obvious conclusions. It is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who attempts to read it. I doubt if anyone will be duped by it, except possibly the most unthinking Catholic who has already made up his mind what he wants to believe, and doesn’t need any persuading either way.

amgid
 
…and thus we see how true the words of 2 peter are:
40.png
amgid:
Actually, what I had “clarified” was the biblical Sacrament. The LDS Sacrament is the same as the biblical Sacrament.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree. The biblical passover meal as recorded is the Bible is identical, from the unleavened bread, wine and exact words of Christ, to the Catholic mass. The LDS water and wonder bread with JS prayers are not found in the Bible
40.png
amgid:
I did look; but I didn’t learn anything new. It is a hypocritical statement full of fudges and obfuscations. It completely smudges over John 6:63. It employs the most disingenuous and convoluted arguments to avoid admitting to the most obvious conclusions. It is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who attempts to read it. I doubt if anyone will be duped by it, except possibly the most unthinking Catholic who has already made up his mind what he wants to believe, and doesn’t need any persuading either way.

amgid
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I think exactly the same about D&C, BoM and especially PoGP regarding Mormons.
 
Robert,

17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

Is Paul a dinner Roll too?
[48] I am the bread of life.
[49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
[52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
[59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
[60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
[62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
[64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
[66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
[67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
[68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” (Jn 6:48-69)
Click to expand...
Internalizing Christs words are what he is talking about. Not internalizing his flesh and and “gnawing” on his bones, and drinking his blood. Sounds more like a brood of vampires to me. Got to love all those Goths!

Why should I appologize for mocking something that is not in scripture?

Matt. 4: 4
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

What I mock is the unscriptural interpretation of “HIS WORDS”.
 
I love 2 Peter 1!

2 Peter 1
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

This scripture should make Protestants very unconfortable!

Why is Peter adding to the “finished” work of Jesus Christ?

Hint: the answer is in verse 10,11.
 
40.png
amgid:
Actually, what I had “clarified” was the biblical Sacrament. The LDS Sacrament is the same as the biblical Sacrament.
Click to expand...
If that’s so, where’s the wine?
 
This thread has gotten way off-topic. Perhaps we can stick to the baptism issue here and somebody can start another thread about the Eucharist.
 
I started a thread on the real presence.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=81945

Here is the answer to your wine question.

Originally wine was used.

D&C 27
2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

scriptures.lds.org/dc/27/2#2

Enemies of the church where trying to poision and kill all the Mormons through the sacramental wine so the Lord gave this command.

With the WOW coming into play they just opted to use water.
 
Please, that type of conspiracy theory is just not supported by facts. Even so JS said to make their own wine which they did in great quantity even during the time of BY.

Only JS tells us that it doesn’t matter what you use. The Bible tells us otherwise. Still unanswered is the rest of the eucharistic meal in the Bible compared to current LDS “sacrament”. Why are the prayers different?
 
40.png
amgid:
Actually, what I had “clarified” was the biblical Sacrament. The LDS Sacrament is the same as the biblical Sacrament.

I did look; but I didn’t learn anything new. It is a hypocritical statement full of fudges and obfuscations. It completely smudges over John 6:63. It employs the most disingenuous and convoluted arguments to avoid admitting to the most obvious conclusions. It is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who attempts to read it. I doubt if anyone will be duped by it, except possibly the most unthinking Catholic who has already made up his mind what he wants to believe, and doesn’t need any persuading either way.

amgid
Click to expand...
Dear Amgid;

Your misinterpretation of Jn 6:53 is a typical response to the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Basically, to force your interpreation upon the entire discourse, one must discount the emphatic reassertions by Jesus to his followers that he is literally the bread of life, not just his words, and not just his actions, but his flesh and blood is real food and drink - just as the paschal lamb and the wine is real food offered at the passover. It all ties in perfectly with the OT sacrifice and the NT passages of the Last Supper at which the Eucharist was instituted. I am not saying this is an easy thing to accept, but it is spirit and life, just as Jesus stated in verse 63. The “flesh” that is of no avail is our own flesh. His flesh and His spirit are life. It is your interpretation of verse 63 that is clearly forced upon the chapter, and which strips all meaning from the full discourse in which the verse occurs. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was never seriously questioned by the early Church, even back to the time of the Apostles.

There are several great online lectures by Scott Hahn that discuss the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the mass at the following website, if you are interested in listening to more of the Catholic perspective. The link is after this paragraph. Simply go to it and then scroll down to the “Eucharist and the Mass” section to access any lecture on that topic. Very interesting presentations - IMHO:

The Eucharist and the Mass
 
very well. Why not baptize children? There is certainly no biblical prohibition and in fact there are specific examples of entire households being baptized.
 
Again, Paul compares baptism with circumcision which was performed at 8 days.

There are also several instances where someone’s faith healed another (like the centurion, Matt 8:5-13). Doesn’t seem like a stretch that the faith of the parents is efficacious when their infant is baptized.
 
40.png
Chris-WA:
I think the following text from Catholic Answers explains this text pretty well…
Click to expand...
The short answer to that is, Who are you trying to kid?

amgid
 
2000 years of Christianity and we still teach what Jesus taught. We still practice what the Apostles did. The baptizing of children is a sacramental gift from God. It brings his blessings into our homes and families. No “kidding” just spiritual truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top