N
NotWorthy
Guest
I didn’t say that they can, but Paul seems to indicate that this is not a barrier to Baptism. John the Baptist surely shows that we can be filled with the Holy Spirit, even as a fetus.
- Status
J
JBaker45
Guest
Verse please.
B
Black_Knight
Guest
Oh I know this one! But it’s anything but symbolic! There’s a whole thread on this on here called The Eucharist IS Scriptural. I just saw it the other day… A search should bring it up.
1st Corinthians 11:23-30
23 11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12 28 A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
J
JBaker45
Guest
Actually, what I was saying was that I find people writing about infant baptism as early as 370.
The simple fact is that error spreads from one person to another.
This is why we must always return to the scriptures and keep our focus on God’s message and not the conclusions of men.
I don’t know.
You and I do not disagree on everything do we?
At any rate, at this point our conversation has become a wee bit unfocused.
Peace to you Maria,
John
J
JBaker45
Guest
But Maria,
A doctrine is not made true simply because it was understood by the church from the beginning (or from an eary time).
Just take a look at the development of the doctrine of the Trinity that both Catholics and Protestant share.
Can you tell us what year the doctrine of the Trinity was first codified?
A doctrine is not made true simply because it was understood by the church from the beginning (or from an eary time).
Just take a look at the development of the doctrine of the Trinity that both Catholics and Protestant share.
Can you tell us what year the doctrine of the Trinity was first codified?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
:coffeeread: John chapter 6:
The Synoptics Gospels: “This is my body… take and eat…”
The above mentioned Corinthians passages.
The Synoptics Gospels: “This is my body… take and eat…”
U
UtahSaint5
Guest
Here is more to put this topic to rest.
4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you.
5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.
6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.
7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:
8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect clove casteth out all fear.
4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you.
5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.
6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.
7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:
8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect clove casteth out all fear.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
This is some funny stuff!!!
Where did you get this?Yeah, that ought to put it to rest!!! Utah, have you read Paul’s letters discussing an angel preaching something contrary to the Gospels? Hmmmmmmmm…
F
FCEGM
Guest
Moroni 8:4-16 (I notice you didn’t post the source of the above) is hardly going to put the topic to rest for Catholics and other Christians.
Further, vs. 13 (“Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.”) is but one reflection of the human source of the Book of Mormon which in this instance erroneously thinks it is answering a belief not actually held by the Churches and denominations that baptize infants.You’d think God would have known that. Welcome to the Forum.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
It’s Moroni chapter 8 of the Book of Mormon.This is some funny stuff!!!
Yeah, that ought to put it to rest!!! Utah, have you read Paul’s letters discussing an angel preaching something contrary to the Gospels? Hmmmmmmmm…
The intro sums up the Mormon belief about infant baptism I guess.
Which of course will not withstand a good Bible study on Infant Baptism and Original Sin (Free MP3 download).
The verse that you are referring to is Galatians 1:8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
BTW, is this the same angel who said, “Go ahead, marry all the women you want!!! We’ll make more!!!”
C
Church_Militant
Guest
:doh2:
uch:
M
MariaG
Guest
But we can both agree that we can find writings much earlier, yes?
But you have yet to show that the interpretation IS in error. You claim it is in error, but I claim you are in error. Who is right?
You have yet to show one Christian who refutes that “error”. Not one. Christians in all times wrote quite alot about subjects, especially when there was heresy that they were trying to confront.
But I guess the biggest difference here is that I actually trust, very literally, when scripture tells us that we will be led to all truth as well as that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
While I do believe we both believe that the Holy Spirit leads and guides us, I do not think either of us believes we are infallible and we can make mistakes.
But I further believe that when God said “all truth” that He really meant that. When He said the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, that He meant it, currently and not that we had to wait 1600 years, with error being taught.
Jn 16:13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Jn 14:26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
1Tim 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
But respectfully, John, you have not shown that your INTERPRETATION of scripture is correct. It is only His message if you are correctly interpreting it.
You use scripture, tell me your interpretation and it is God’s message. I use scripture, tell you the interpretation of the Catholic Church AND show that this is what the early Christians believed also and mine is not the message of God but the conclusion of men?
On what basis do you say that your interpretation is God’s message and mine, sometimes using the very same scripture, is wrongly interpreted and is simply a conclusion of men?
No, we do agree on some things
.Yes, it has shifted focus from solely infant baptism to who has the authority to interpret scripture. But I thank you for your time
Yes, at about 380AD.
But again, even though that is the year it was codified and even though the WORD trinity was not present until about 100 years before, does not mean it was not taught and written about before then. The belief in the Trinity was there right from the beginning.
We can see in the writings of the early Christians, the very firm belief in the Trinity even if that word was not used, similar to the writings of infant baptism.
Development of doctrine is very different than the invention of new doctrine.
I think we would both agree that the fleshing out and defining the Trinity was just that, fleshing out and further defining of a concept that was in fact taught by the apostles, at least implicitly.
Yet, if we look at scripture alone, while we both would be able to “see” quite clearly the Trinity being taught, there are people like Oneness Pentecostals and JW’s who do not “see” the Trinity in scripture and interpret scripture incorrectly.
We wander from infant baptism. Authority. Who has the authority to interpret scripture and is there an infallible authority that does so?
New thread
God Bless,
Maria
J
JBaker45
Guest
The question I would have for you is what conclusions would you draw from any date?JBaker45:
But we can both agree that we can find writings much earlier, yes?
Let’s find something we can disagree on first.
But when you say “church” do you mean the entire body of Christ or just the Roman Catholic church?
My statement was a general one.JBaker45:
But respectfully, John, you have not shown that your INTERPRETATION of scripture is correct.
Am I misreading you, or are you offering this as an excuse to take your eyes off of the word of God?
I don’t recall saying that
Okay. I will accept your date.JBaker45:
Yes, at about 380AD.
But again, even though that is the year it was codified and even though the WORD trinity was not present until about 100 years before, does not mean it was not taught and written about before then. The belief in the Trinity was there right from the beginning.
We can see in the writings of the early Christians, the very firm belief in the Trinity even if that word was not used, similar to the writings of infant baptism.
Development of doctrine is very different than the invention of new doctrine.
I think we would both agree that the fleshing out and defining the Trinity was just that, fleshing out and further defining of a concept that was in fact taught by the apostles, at least implicitly.
Yet, if we look at scripture alone, while we both would be able to “see” quite clearly the Trinity being taught, there are people like Oneness Pentecostals and JW’s who do not “see” the Trinity in scripture and interpret scripture incorrectly.
And my point was not that the doctrine of the Trinity was invented or created out of nothing. Only that it took the body of Christ time in order to fully realize the truth of it.
Yes, new thread material here.We wander from infant baptism. Authority. Who has the authority to interpret scripture and is there an infallible authority that does so?
New thread
God Bless,
Maria
Peace,
John
M
MariaG
Guest
Hi John
I see that in fact, most of our dialogue is completely off thread. Instead of answering and continuing to draw this farther and farther away from specific verses about infant baptism and scripture, I will cease. If you wish to start a new one, I would certainly be interested.
Something along the lines of How can a Christian know whose interpretation of scripture is correct when they disagree?
Since even over at CARM, a site that does not recognize the basic Christianity of Catholics, does in fact recognize that Lutherans are Christians, and Lutherans believe in infant baptism, a regerative baptism, I would be interested in this kind of dialogue.
Does anyone have the ability to infallible interpret scripture? Can we truly be led to all truth in practice, not just theory, as scripture promises? If scripture is the final authority, who has the final authority to say ones interpretation of scripture is correct?
Or things along those lines.
If not, that is okay too But if you do wish to pursue more dialogue on these lines, please post a link in this thread or pm as to the thread. I do not always go to the open boards but sometimes only check on my subscribed threads.
God Bless,
Maria
I see that in fact, most of our dialogue is completely off thread. Instead of answering and continuing to draw this farther and farther away from specific verses about infant baptism and scripture, I will cease. If you wish to start a new one, I would certainly be interested.
Something along the lines of How can a Christian know whose interpretation of scripture is correct when they disagree?
Since even over at CARM, a site that does not recognize the basic Christianity of Catholics, does in fact recognize that Lutherans are Christians, and Lutherans believe in infant baptism, a regerative baptism, I would be interested in this kind of dialogue.
Does anyone have the ability to infallible interpret scripture? Can we truly be led to all truth in practice, not just theory, as scripture promises? If scripture is the final authority, who has the final authority to say ones interpretation of scripture is correct?
Or things along those lines.
If not, that is okay too
But if you do wish to pursue more dialogue on these lines, please post a link in this thread or pm as to the thread. I do not always go to the open boards but sometimes only check on my subscribed threads.God Bless,
Maria
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I feel like I’m a lot like the Ethiopian Eunuch (well, not in THAT way). Sometimes I feel like, “How can I understand it if someone doesn’t explain it to me”. Notice, the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide the Eunuch to understanding. The Holy Spirit tells Philip, a member of the Church, to teach him.
I’d say the Catholic Church is rather Biblical in it’s form of Scripture Interpretation.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Error does spread from one persn to another…personal misinterpretation of the Bible is one of the root causes of heresies and schism. Peter warned about people who would twist the scriptures (unknowingly!) to their own destruction.
This is precisely why Jesus did not leave us a book…he left a group of men to whom He had given real authority.
That authority has been passed from one man to the next for 2,000 years through the laying on of hands and is known as Apostolic Succession.
Today, in the Catholic Church, you will find Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium working together to proclaim the gospel infallibly.
A “Bible Christian” with his scriptures on his lap (along with the notes from his pastor’s latest sermon) is not guaranteed to understand what he is reading infallibly.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
370?
You can go back much earlier than that…to the New Testament if you wish. However, outside scripture, you might consider:
Early Church Fathers on Infant Baptism
Polycarp (69-155 AD)
“Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (*Martyrdom of Polycarp *9: 3)
Irenaeus
“For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4).
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).
**Justin Martyr (100 – 166 AD) **
“Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15).
Hippolytus (170-236 AD)
“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
“The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Commentary on Romans, 5.9).
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]).
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Council of Carthage (254 AD)
“We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.”
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
rob179ny
Guest
[SIGN]AMEN I SAY TO YOU AMEN BECAUSE THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH[/SIGN]
R
rob179ny
Guest
Take a look at LUKE 1:41-44
- Status