Yet another Infant Baptism proof - from St. Paul

[JBaker45]

Please show us the scripture passages that state these 5 are the essentials.

The reason I call them primary essentials is because scripture states explicitly that they are necessary for salvation.

(The verse references were given.)

 

[JBaker45]

If we wish to have a serious dialog then we need to agree on terms.

Do you seriously disagree with this?

Again, the question is: don’t you think we need to agree on terms?

I see little reason in continuing a discussion if we are only going to be talking past one another.

 

[JBaker45]

The Catholic Church teaches some Truth universally throughout the Church. Only when that teaching is faced with a big enough controversy, does the Papacy and/or an Ecumenical Council define the Church as a Dogma or Doctrine. That’s why is was the 4th century before infant baptism was significantly addressed. That’s why Transubstantiation was addressed in the 12th century. That’s why Trent addressed the Canon, Purgatory, and probably a few other issues in the 15th century (thanks to those “pesky Reformers” ).

I don’t think that we disagree on the fact that much good has come out of church councils in the past.

Where we disagree seems to be on which takes precedence (when there is conflict), the inerrant word, or statements made by church fathers.

 

[NotWorthy]

I made no such claim.

I merely noted that infant baptism was documented at that time.

Screeeeech! Apply the brakes again!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

The reason I call them primary essentials is because scripture states explicitly that they are necessary for salvation.

(The verse references were given.)

Except for that explicitely stated symbolic teaching of the Eucharist.

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t think that we disagree on the fact that much good has come out of church councils in the past.

Where we disagree seems to be on which takes precedence (when there is conflict), the inerrant word, or statements made by church fathers.

And yet you haven’t shown the conflict.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Where we disagree seems to be on which takes precedence (when there is conflict), the inerrant word, or statements made by church fathers.

You have no idea how tiresome this is. I post the following link countless times per week to those who believe that the Word of God is Scripture. And folks just go on as though I had never posted it.

The Word of God is not Scripture. It never has been. It is Jesus.

Logos. The Word of God is not textual. It is Personal.

I posted this before. It is obvious you have ignored what I have posted and ignored the link I have given. So that leads me to conclude that you are not discussing. You are merely singlemindedly promoting an agenda.

Ho-hum. :coffeeread:

 

[MariaG]

An absence of information is not proof.

Respectfully John, Let’s recap.

You ask if I am shown the truth, if I will be willing to admit it. I do.

You say that it was in 370 infant baptism was invented, we show you the date to be wrong, and dates are no longer important.

You say the opinion of one person does not show universal teaching. I agree and show you multiple opinions of Christians in the first 3 centuries but ???

And now, you say the absence of written proof doesn’t mean anything.

YET, the written proof of MULTIPLE Christians, all saying that baptism is regenerative means nothing?

You still don’t see that you have asked me to throw out my interpretation of scripture and replace it with yours. We both believe the Holy Spirit led us to the truth, and that we both believe the Holy Spirit is the one who has shown us the truth.

Yet, I can show multiple Christians for CENTURIES including the first three who interpret scripture the way the Catholic Church says is correct, and in fact the way LUTHER says is correct, and you can show not one until the 1600’s.

Yet I am wrong and you are right in your *intepretation *of scripture?

The question seems to be are you willing to admit that you could be wrong or do you believe you have an infallible abilitiy to interpret scripture? If you don’t believe you are infallible, then why can’t you admit that you maybe, just maybe, that your INTERPRETATION of scripture does not match up to the interpretation of scripture of the Early Christians despite what you have been taught to believe otherwise?

With love,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Where we disagree seems to be on which takes precedence (when there is conflict), the inerrant word, or statements made by church fathers.

The problem is that it is not that scripture is taking precedence when there is conflict, John. The problem Your INTERPRETATION of scripture that has no support in history is what you are trying to say should take precedence over the interpretation of scripture by Christians for centuries.

Our belief is scriptural and is not manmade. You believe we are interpreting it wrongly yet cannot show anyone who agrees with you until the 1600’s. Neither History, nor the word of God are on your side.

:bible1: 2Pet3:15-16
15] And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand…

God Bless,
Maria

 

[NotWorthy]

The problem is that it is not that scripture is taking precedence when there is conflict, John. The problem Your INTERPRETATION of scripture that has no support in history is what you are trying to say should take precedence over the interpretation of scripture by Christians for centuries.

Our belief is scriptural and is not manmade. You believe we are interpreting it wrongly yet cannot show anyone who agrees with you until the 1600’s. Neither History, nor the word of God are on your side.

:bible1: 2Pet3:15-16
15] And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand…

God Bless,
Maria

OK, it all boils down to this. Who are you going to trust? Someone who:

• Shared a language with the Apostles.
• Shared their customs with the Apostles.
• Shared their meals with the Apostles.
• Learned at the feet of the Apostles, listening to them explain their teachings when someone asked, “What do you mean by this” and "What do you mean by that".
• Someone’s who’s writings have been upheld for almost 2000 years by comparing it with Scripture.

or

someone who learns his Scriptures from a translation of that original language, who is unfamiliar with the customs, and only has the words that were written by the Apostles in Scripture to determine their original intent.

 

[MariaG]

OK, it all boils down to this. Who are you going to trust? Someone who:

• Shared a language with the Apostles.
• Shared their customs with the Apostles.
• Shared their meals with the Apostles.
• Learned at the feet of the Apostles, listening to them explain their teachings when someone asked, “What do you mean by this” and "What do you mean by that".
• Someone’s who’s writings have been upheld for almost 2000 years by comparing it with Scripture.

or

someone who learns his Scriptures from a translation of that original language, who is unfamiliar with the customs, and only has the words that were written by the Apostles in Scripture to determine their original intent.

And I would respectfully add that none of the plain common sense above, trumps the fact that I am first and foremost, trusting the Holy Spirit.

We’ve got the Holy Spirit AND common sense:extrahappy:

Stepping out on faith does not mean we have to put our critical thinking skills aside. Remember, Paul commended the people who tested against the scriptures all that he was saying.

 

[NotWorthy]

And I would respectfully add that none of the plain common sense above, trumps the fact that I am first and foremost, trusting the Holy Spirit.

We’ve got the Holy Spirit AND common sense:extrahappy:

Stepping out on faith does not mean we have to put our critical thinking skills aside. Remember, Paul commended the people who tested against the scriptures all that he was saying.

But it does “chap my chapper” for someone to act like they got exclusive rights to this guiadance of the Holy Ghost. It’s almost as if the Holy Spirit was dormant for 1500 years according to the arrogance of some people’s posts.

 

[MariaG]

But it does “chap my chapper” for someone to act like they got exclusive rights to this guiadance of the Holy Ghost. It’s almost as if the Holy Spirit was dormant for 1500 years according to the arrogance of some people’s posts.

Unfortunately, some have fallen for the lie that the Catholic Church is unscriptural. Since they know they have the Holy Spirit, they find it hard to believe they are wrong about particular scripture passages, even as they acknowledge they are not infallible in their interpretations, they cannot accept that they are wrong in their interpretation, and worse, that the Catholic church is right.

And really, I can understand, somewhat. You know what you know. IF you KNOW you have the Holy Spirit, and have been taught for a long while that the Catholic Church is unscriptural, it is hard to even wrap your brain around the fact that you are wrong in your interpretation of scripture and the Catholic Church is right.

They do not want to confront the plain fact that we have reems of scripture which we shows the regenerative aspect of Baptism, Christ’s blood cleansing us of sin through baptism. For then, they would have to admit that their fallible interpretation is in error. Once they do that, many questions will follow. What can I trust? I now see I was wrong about that, how can I trust in anything, soemtimes going so far as to doubt even Christ.

**I. ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS **977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved."521 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life."522

521 Mk 16:15-16.
522 Rom 6:4; Cf. 4:25

God Bless,
Maria

 

[JoeyWarren]

someone who learns his Scriptures from a translation of that original language, who is unfamiliar with the customs, and only has the words that were written by the Apostles in Scripture to determine their original intent.

Grant me the indulgence of expanding on your above statment?

someone who learns his Scriptures from a translation (which by-the-way cannot be proven to be inspired- which is why we have to fall back on the Greek manuscripts and of the Aramaic usage of the time ) of that original language, who is unfamiliar with the customs and culture at the time the originals were written, and only has the potentially mal-translated words that were written by the Apostles in Scripture to determine their original intent.

 

[NotWorthy]

They do not want to confront the plain fact that we have reems of scripture which we shows the regenerative aspect of Baptism, Christ’s blood cleansing us of sin through baptism. For then, they would have to admit that their fallible interpretation is in error. Once they do that, many questions will follow. What can I trust? I now see I was wrong about that, how can I trust in anything, soemtimes going so far as to doubt even Christ.

It seems to me we all wear glasses (of our own or our Churches’ teaching) when we read Scripture. Meaning, we interpret Scripture according to what we already believe.

The other day, on the topic of “works an judgment”, I asked someone to explain the parable of the “Sheeps an Goats”.

One poster said it just proves that Jesus is the Good Shepherd. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Someone else responded that it proves that some are pre-destined for heaven (the sheep) and some are not (the goats).

It’s amazing to me, but I’m not wearing the same lens that they are, nor are they wearing mine (given to me by the Church).

It saddens me to realize this, for it just means that what I’m trying to say, is not what they are hearing (and of course, vice-versa). How do you evangelize in this arena?

 

[guanophore]

again, can you cause a baby to believe? I think not!

Read your Bible for yourself, the Bible, not some othert book put together by common men!

No, but you can sure bring up a child in the faith, so that when they get older, they will not depart from it.

The Bible was written by “common men” billish, inspired by the HS. Those same “common men” (chosen by Jesus to be His apostles) taught and practiced baptism of people of all ages, from birth to death.

o.k. Notworthy, I’m not exactly sure what lectoring is; I guess it’s some sort of lecture.

See where “guessing” gets you? I think you have been informed (though I have not finished reading the thread) that the title “lector” is that given to the person reading the scripture to the congregation during Mass.

Are you trying to say that at this point Christ was baptizing children? I’d say you are inferring much more than is there. Even to me; just a guy in the pews, it is painfully obvious that the lesson Christ is teaching is that we must have the purity of a child if we are to inherit a home in heaven.

Jesus commanded baptism as the entrance to the new covenant. He taught that we should not prevent the little ones. However, Jesus did not baptize, only His disciples.

To whom did circumcision apply? To the first century Christians? You know better! Circumcision applied to the jews, NOT to the first century Christians! Weak argument!

The old covenant prefigures the new, billbush. The NT clearly teaches that baptism replaces circumcision as the initiation into that new covenant. It is only weak arguement if you do not understand the principle of prefiguration.

 

[MariaG]

It seems to me we all wear glasses (of our own or our Churches’ teaching) when we read Scripture. Meaning, we interpret Scripture according to what we already believe.

The other day, on the topic of “works an judgment”, I asked someone to explain the parable of the “Sheeps an Goats”.

One poster said it just proves that Jesus is the Good Shepherd. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Someone else responded that it proves that some are pre-destined for heaven (the sheep) and some are not (the goats).

It’s amazing to me, but I’m not wearing the same lens that they are, nor are they wearing mine (given to me by the Church).

It saddens me to realize this, for it just means that what I’m trying to say, is not what they are hearing (and of course, vice-versa). How do you evangelize in this arena?

To a certain extent, you are correct. We do tend to interpret through the lens of what you already believe.

And though it is slightly ironic, we just need to present the truth, and trust the Holy Spirit to convict them of the truth.

Sometimes, most of the time especially here on these forums, you will never see the fruit of the seeds we plant. I know for me, there were people who I can point to who planted seeds in me, whom I have never seen since then and who never got to see my flowering faith in Christ. I frequently wish I could meet them again and thank them for their witness to me.

And occassionally, here in the forums, I get really down and wonder if any good is being done. One time, I asked the Lord to please, show me the fruit, or I needed to no longer spend the amount of time I do here.

Within a week, I recieved 2 different PM thanking me for participation and helping them to see the truth through scripture. One was Catholic, one was not.

We are just His hands and feet, planting the seeds. The Holy Spirit is the one that will bring the seeds to fruition.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[UtahSaint5]

Reading these threads it has become obvious that there is not enough bible study going on. For the correct answer read this excerpt from 1 Peter chapter 3:18-22.

18 For Christ also hath once asuffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the bspirits in cprison;
20 aWhich sometime were bdisobedient, when once the clongsuffering of God waited in the days of dNoah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were esaved by fwater.
21 The like figure whereunto even abaptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into aheaven, and is on the right hand of God; bangels and cauthorities and powers being made subject unto him.

 

[ellie777]

As I was Lectoring at daily Mass today, I came across the story in Acts where Paul and Silas are jailed at Phillippi (Acts 16: 22-34).

After the earthquake, the jailor comes and finds out the status of the prisoners and finds them still there, so he doesn’t kill himself in shame. Listen to Paul’s response very closely, especially to what he doesn’t say:
He doesn’t say, you and your household who are of age. He says, you and your household! Paul then goes and baptizes the jailor and his entire household. Now Paul, who is a visitor to Phillippi, would probably not be very intimately familiar with this jailor and his family enough to know that he doesn’t have kids 12 and under. Look at where they are housed in the jail Not many family members would be willing to venture into this part of the jail, wouldn’t you say? But Paul emphatically says, you and your household will be saved!!!

Sounds to me like Paul is anticipating the baptism of anyone of any age of the jailor’s family.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[ellie777]

ellie777:
How can babies believe on the Lord Jesus?