Question:
You need to pay attention. In another thread some one said that there are many ways to be saved in the rcc. Don’t flatter yourself, CB. I certainly don’t go looking for you posts when I open this ng.
And all this time I thought you knew what your church teaches! Sorry but I only use the bible. The Bible alone is not enough. 22,000 sects of Protestants can’t agree on what it says.
Neither can catholics. However, you use everything but the bible. We wrote and canonized the Bible. Say thank-you.
For what?! God doesn’t need anyone to "canonize" His Word. Ad "we wrote the bible" is a lie. But you already know that! Traditions The Bible is a tradition, you know. catechisms You use catechisms too.
Wrong again. visions of Mary If Mary or any other Saint, or Jesus Christ Himself, appears to someone, that’s their business. But what they have to say is for private use only. Dave
– Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Response:
How much we wish everything was simple and plain but apparently it is not. There are teachings of the RCC that contradict your statement. For example the teaching regarding salvation. You have a long way to go before you figure the RCC out I guess. Good Luck!
I don’t need to "figure out" the rcc, I have the Truth. Michael Thanks for proving what I said: the rcc teaches non baptized babies are going to hell.
– Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Response:
How much we wish everything was simple and plain but apparently it is not. There are teachings of the RCC that contradict your statement. For example the teaching regarding salvation. You have a long way to go before you figure the RCC out I guess. Good Luck! I don’t need to "figure out" the rcc, I have the Truth.
+ Lookie here. CB sez he’s got the truth…. + Tell us, CB, all bout yer truth. + Is your name written in the ol book-o-life? + Have you been saved? + When did you get saved? + Tell us about the day you gots yerself saved….
Response:
Read this for a non-Catholic version of history: http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/articles/orchard00.htm Doesn’t it say the eunuch could be baptized only if he believed? You know good and well that the Bible does NOT say that.
It absolutely says that. Everytime you see a baptism in the Bible, you see that person believing first. And the eunuch specifically was told he could be baptized only IF he believed first. Are you saying that this passage in Romans is wrong? <snip a citation that we all know
Let’s not snip God’s word: (Romans 4:6-12) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, {7} Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. {8} Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. {9} Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. {10} How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. {11} And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: {12} And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. Doesn’t this passage say that Abraham was declared righteous BEFORE circumcision and that circumcision was merely a sign? Circumcision did not make Abraham or his descendents righteous any more than Baptism makes us righteous. But do you not recall, you who thumps his Bible so loudly, that God told Abraham, "The uncircumcised male, whose foreskin has not been circumcised – that person must be cut off from his people: he has broken my covenant"???
Let’s look at what else God says about circumcision: (Romans 2:28-29) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: {29} But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Catholicism is all about the physical rather than the spiritual. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
Can you explain why you think the water in that verse is water baptism? Gordon, do you not see that you are tempting God to cut-off your unbaptized Children, to send them to Hell, should they die before "being saved" by your traditions of
men? My children don’t get saved by traditions of men. All people can only be saved by grace through faith – not grace through sprinkled water, not grace through church membership, not grace through a religious institution. Saving grace comes only through faith. Do you really want your precious children and infants to be pitchfork bait?
Sounds like you get your idea of Satan and Hell from Hollywood. Do you not know that it doesn’t specifically include infants? And have you forgotten that it does not specifically EXCLUDE them?
I’ve never seen an infant demonsrate faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Have you? I didn’t think so. Everyone baptized in the Bible demonstrates faith before being baptized. Are you one of those who try all religions just in case one is correct so you’ll have your bases covered? Have you not heard that Catholics know for a fact that theirs is the one True Church?
They think they know. Take a gander at the link I put at the top of this post. Do you not recall that St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 7:14, the faith of even one Christian parent renders a
child holy? It says they are sanctified – not saved. Have you so soon forgotten that St. Peter declares that the gift of Baptism, the Holy Spirit and the Promise of Salvation is "for you ~and your children~ and for those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God is calling to himself".
Yes, God’s promises are not just for the parents to claim but for their children to claim also. I’ve never seen an infant claim a promise though. Gordon, your Baptist sect has bet the farm on defending a doctrine that is NOT even mentioned in the Bible.
What doctrine is that? Gordon http://www2.go-concepts.com/~gordon Before you buy.
Response:
In article No more so than the feces you spread through the usenet Ratboy. Pax <rat droppings removed
Yeow. Looks like I’d better quit grepping Usenet for my screen name now. Dave (a *different* ratboy.) Before you buy.
Response:
Sorry but I only use the bible. However, you use everything but the bible. Traditions, catechisms, visions of Mary, etc…..
+ Are you jealous?
Response:
Using UNIX? well if you are the Rat my comments were intended for, than I am impressed that a mental midget like you would be capable of mastering such an operating system. Pax – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In article No more so than the feces you spread through the usenet Ratboy. Pax <rat droppings removed Yeow. Looks like I’d better quit grepping Usenet for my screen name now. Dave (a *different* ratboy.) Before you buy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gordon Hammerle wrote in arc-rc: So baptizing a baby guarentees Heaven for the baby? Nobody said that. You know better. Do you use one of those "Bibles" that leave this out? Acts 8:35-38 So, you come to arc-rc to make a KJV-only, Textus Receptus argument?! We could care less what interpolations your cult-idol has in it. Doesn’t it say the eunuch could be baptized only if he believed? You know good and well that the Bible does NOT say that. That is a tradition of men that was interpolated into a few mss. in patristic times. The KJV translators aren’t to be blamed for being fooled, however, since they were following a good Catholic’s (Erasmus) rather hasty and sometimes flawed production of a Greek text of the NT, and it is also in many of the Medieval mss. of the ultimate Catholic Bible, the Vulgate. But these productions date to the dawn of the era in which Bible scholars rediscovered the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts … we’ve come a long way since then. What’s circumcision got to do with going to Heaven? Precisely the same thing that obeying God and assenting to His Covenant has to do with going to heaven. Are you saying everyone prior to Abraham went to Hell? Are you saying that God did not make a Covenant with Abraham and his descendents? Are you saying that this passage in Romans is wrong? <snip a citation that we all know Doesn’t this passage say that Abraham was declared righteous BEFORE circumcision and that circumcision was merely a sign? Circumcision did not make Abraham or his descendents righteous any more than Baptism makes us righteous. But do you not recall, you who thumps his Bible so loudly, that God told Abraham, "The uncircumcised male, whose foreskin has not been circumcised – that person must be cut off from his people: he has broken my covenant"??? Righteous or not, the uncircumcised were pitchfork- bait. So too, in the New Covenant, God tells us that "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you," and, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Gordon, do you not see that you are tempting God to cut-off your unbaptized Children, to send them to Hell, should they die before "being saved" by your traditions of men? Do you really want your precious children and infants to be pitchfork bait? Do you not know that it doesn’t specifically include infants? And have you forgotten that it does not specifically EXCLUDE them? No where, I say NOWHERE, in the Bible is it written "Thou shalt not baptize those under the age of reason." Are you one of those who try all religions just in case one is correct so you’ll have your bases covered? Have you not heard that Catholics know for a fact that theirs is the one True Church? What’s that got to with infants and baptism and going to Heaven? Everything. That is the prooftext for those good individuals in the NT who heard the Gospel and then marched their entire households to the baptistry font. As a slave or servant or wife or child, you were whatever relgion that daddy was, and if daddy got baptized, so too then did the missus and little junior, not to mention the domestic help. Do you not recall that St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 7:14, the faith of even one Christian parent renders a child holy? Have you so soon forgotten that St. Peter declares that the gift of Baptism, the Holy Spirit and the Promise of Salvation is "for you ~and your children~ and for those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God is calling to himself". Gordon, your Baptist sect has bet the farm on defending a doctrine that is NOT even mentioned in the Bible. At the same time, you IGNORE the Eucharistic Presence of Christ, which is mentioned in the Bible over and over and over agin. I know that you have friends and family in your church, but to save your soul you should repent and come out of your man-made religious system. Come to Jesus. Come to His Church. Dave
– Gordon http://www2.go-concepts.com/~gordon Before you buy.
Response:
Should Babies Be Baptized? Only if the parents want them to go to heaven. Thanks for proving what I said: the rcc teaches non baptized babies are going to hell.
Even as an atheist and ex-catholic I know that is wrong….but hey…I was only passing! — Alan Ferris eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div. When the only colour is black – the only sound the broken bell THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan arc’s Gallery: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/rogue.htm ICQ UIN: 12811297
Response:
CB shook off his lethargy and spaketh: Should Babies Be Baptized? Only if the parents want them to go to heaven. Thanks for proving what I said: the rcc teaches non baptized babies are going to hell. That’s nice, CB. We teach only what the Bible says: to be saved you must be baptized.
You need to pay attention. In another thread some one said that there are many ways to be saved in the rcc. That’s all. But I’ve heard that the Bible isn’t enough for you, so you add a bit here and there until it sounds real nice and Campbellite.
Sorry but I only use the bible. However, you use everything but the bible. Traditions, catechisms, visions of Mary, etc….. Dave
– Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – CB shook off his lethargy and spaketh: Should Babies Be Baptized? Only if the parents want them to go to heaven. Thanks for proving what I said: the rcc teaches non baptized babies are going to hell. That’s nice, CB. We teach only what the Bible says: to be saved you must be baptized. You need to pay attention. In another thread some one said that there are many ways to be saved in the rcc. That’s all. But I’ve heard that the Bible isn’t enough for you, so you add a bit here and there until it sounds real nice and Campbellite. Sorry but I only use the bible. However, you use everything but the bible.
Liar. Traditions, catechisms, visions of Mary, etc…..
…but not CB’s private, personally destructive interpretations of what he think he reads in the Bible. Alan
Response:
You need to pay attention. In another thread some one said that there are many ways to be saved in the rcc.
Don’t flatter yourself, CB. I certainly don’t go looking for you posts when I open this ng. Sorry but I only use the bible.
The Bible alone is not enough. 22,000 sects of Protestants can’t agree on what it says. However, you use everything but the bible.
We wrote and canonized the Bible. Say thank-you. Traditions
The Bible is a tradition, you know. catechisms
You use catechisms too. visions of Mary
If Mary or any other Saint, or Jesus Christ Himself, appears to someone, that’s their business. But what they have to say is for private use only. Dave
Response:
How much we wish everything was simple and plain but apparently it is not. There are teachings of the RCC that contradict your statement. For example the teaching regarding salvation. You have a long way to go before you figure the RCC out I guess. Good Luck! Michael – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Thanks for proving what I said: the rcc teaches non baptized babies are going to hell.
Response:
No more so than the feces you spread through the usenet Ratboy. Pax <rat droppings removed
Response:
<snip Even as an…ex-catholic…
Very good, ferris. Alan
Response:
OOPS!! I accidently snipped your post. Oh well, I’m sure it was boring as always. — Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Response:
Should Babies Be Baptized? Only if the parents want them to go to heaven.
Thanks for proving what I said: the rcc teaches non baptized babies are going to hell. Dave
– Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield unto them that take refuge in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Response:
CB shook off his lethargy and spaketh: Should Babies Be Baptized? Only if the parents want them to go to heaven. Thanks for proving what I said: the rcc teaches non baptized babies are going to hell.
That’s nice, CB. We teach only what the Bible says: to be saved you must be baptized. That’s all. But I’ve heard that the Bible isn’t enough for you, so you add a bit here and there until it sounds real nice and Campbellite. Dave
Response:
Here is a little truth on the subject. Infant Baptism Fundamentalists say the Catholic Church is wrong to baptize infants. Baptism, they say, is for adults and older children only because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience–that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, one of the elect, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it actually does nothing itself to secure or help with salvation; one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway. As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a symbol, a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is not appropriate for infants or for children below the age of reason. Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason (most say 7) infants and young children are automatically saved, no matter what. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven. Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, of course, seeing it as a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin (only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons). Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38 ). But he didn’t restrict this teaching only to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. The connection between baptism and salvation is clear, not only because of these passages, but because of other explicit passages such as 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Other Benefits of Baptism Along with this forgiveness of sins comes an infusion of grace. It is this grace that makes the soul spiritually alive and capable of enjoying heaven. There are other benefits, too, such as the elimination of punishment due for sins and the right to special graces necessary to enable the baptized to fulfill his baptismal promises. But a consideration of these aspects of the sacrament would take us away from the narrow topic this tract is about:, infant baptism. In the Middle Ages, some groups, such as the Waldenses and Catharists, rejected infant baptism. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them in saying infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the Catholic Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults. Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of having a right to his kingdom. He asserted such a right even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14). More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:15-16). Now Fundamentalists say this verse doesn’t really apply to young children or infants since it implies the persons being referred to are able to approach Christ on their own. (Older translations have "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they can do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably capable of sinning. But the parallel text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe), and following this are the same words as in Matt. 19:14. The Greek word brephe means "infants"–children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists don’t want to permit the baptism of infants and young children because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can they be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them? In Place of Circumcision Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, it was mainly infants who were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, there being few converts to Judaism. If Paul, in making this parallel, meant to exclude infants from baptism, he would have said so. Fundamentalists do not often admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults. They just conclude that’s what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text doesn’t explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and there aren’t many who are individually identified) are adults because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just starting out and there were no "cradle Christians," no people brought up from childhood in Christian homes. Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when there were beginning to be children raised in Christian homes, we never–not even once–find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." It’s always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible. Specific Biblical References? But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are fairly clear. Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching. "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith, who had been about to commit suicide when they were miraculously freed from their imprisonment, was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16). In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailor and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we don’t. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture. Granted, we can’t tell the age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized (this was a world with no reliable form of birth control, remember). Furthermore, if given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be spelled out. Catholics From the First The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants." Augustine said of infant baptism: "This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end." Cyprian wrote that "From baptism and from grace . . . must not be kept the infant." The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that infants should be withheld from baptism until the eighth day after birth. No Cry of "Invention!" No one, apparently, was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. It was as though they were saying, "We all agree infants can be baptized and that infant baptism was practiced from the first, but exactly when should they be baptized?" Another telling point: If infant baptism was opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian … read more »
Response:
The infant hardly looks like a sinner. Yet washing away sin is what this age-old rite is all about.
We are the offspring of Adam and Eve and are therefore a tainted race because of the Original Sin. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." "The wages of sin is death, and the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus." FOR nearly two millenniums infants have been baptized in a ceremony like this. Parents may describe it as a deeply moving experience. However, does the practice find its origin in God’s Word? Catholic theologians admit that it does not.-See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 69.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ Read the Bible book of Acts for yourself
Oh, so I know more about the faith than the two thousand year old Church, have the guarantee of Christ that I would be guided by the Holy Spirit, and should be made the final authority over doctrines of a faith that the Church brought to everyone, myself included? I know I can read and understand to a certain extent so I do read, but am I capable of being a final infallible authority? , and you will quickly see that among early Christians, baptism was for those capable of ‘hearing and receiving words’ with understanding and of ‘doing penance.’ (Acts 2:14, 22, 38, 41, Douay Version) Hardly things an infant could do! True, the Bible does speak of whole households, such as that of Cornelius, being baptized. But even then, baptism was for those "hearing the word"-not for infants.-Acts 10:44-47. A Tradition of God or of Men? Unable to point to a Biblical precedent, the Vatican says, "The practice of baptizing infants is considered a rule of immemorial tradition." But was this tradition laid down by Jesus Christ?
What about the circumcision of infants that was done since Abraham? I believe the Church was instituted by Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. If the Church declared it to be a sound doctrine, I then believe that the baptism of infants is in accordance with the will of Christ. The baptism of infants, to me, is just parents presenting their child to the Lord, and asking God and His Church to accept it. It would be unfortunate for the child to pass away before this can be done. I find absolutely nothing wrong with that. And of course there is the profound benefit of the washing away of Original Sin. The apostle Paul warned, however, that eventually there would come a time "when people will not tolerate sound doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:3, The New American Bible)
Protestantism? Anti-Catholism? After the apostles died and were no longer able to ‘act as a restraint,’ unscriptural practices began to creep into Christian worship. (2 Thessalonians 2:6) Among them was infant baptism.
Oh, so Christ only intended the guidance of the Church to last as long as the disciples lived? Preposterous! The disciples were the ones who appointed the apostles as their own successors and this apostolic succession continues today in the clergy of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. But infant baptism did not become the rule until the fifth century.
So what? The most popular theory of all, though, has proved to be that the souls of unbaptized infants are housed in limbo. This word literally means "border" (such as the border, or hem, of a garment) and describes a region that supposedly stands on the borders of hell. For theologians, limbo is a very convenient notion. It at least modifies the horrifying specter of suffering infants. But like any man-made theory, limbo has its problems. Why is it not mentioned in Scripture? Can babies get out of limbo? And why should innocent babies have to go there in the first place? Understandably, the church makes a point of saying that limbo "is not official Catholic teaching."-New Catholic Encyclopedia.
I don’t know anything about limbo. Maybe I will read up on it. But if some doctrine is set forth by the Church, I will accept it and submit to the Church’s authority because I believe in Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church, and the Church knows a lot more than I do and than anyone else does (in matters concerning the faith, morals, and the will of Christ anyway). So if your interpretation goes against that of the Church, it counts as nothing to me. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Baptizing a small child does not help him develop in faith. In fact, it violates Jesus’ command: "Go therefore and make disciples [or, "make learners"] . . . baptizing them." (Matthew 28:19) Baptism is meaningless unless one is old enough to be a disciple. True, there is an "immemorial tradition" for infant baptism. But did not Jesus condemn those who ‘made the word of God invalid because of their tradition’?-Matthew 15:6. If a Christian’s child should die before baptism, parents need not fear that he burns in hell or lingers in limbo. The Bible teaches that the dead are unconscious. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) Parents can thus take comfort in Jesus’ promise that "the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out" with the prospect of life in a restored Paradise. (John 5:28, 29; Luke 23:43) This Bible-based hope is of far more comfort than are changeable-and confusing-human traditions.
Funny how people attempt to use Sacred Scripture to discredit the Church. Question: Who wrote the New Testament? Answer: The Catholic Church. Here’s another. Question: Who compiled the New Testament and declared it to be Sacred Scripture? Answer: The Catholic Church. Question: Who was persecuted for centuries because of said document? <Take one wild guess Answer: The Catholic Church. The Church existed before the Bible, not the other way around. The Bible gets its authority from the Church, not the other way around. The Bible didn’t just fall down from Heaven you know. It is part of the Written Tradition (handing-down) of the Church and that is why it has its authority. Any attempts to discredit the Church using the Bible would also be an attempt to discredit the Bible and all of the Christian faith. If the Church is false, Christianity is false since all we know about Christ came, directly or indirectly, from the Catholic Church. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Highlights of the History of Infant Baptism Date (C.E.) Event c. 193 . . Tertullian argues for adult baptism 253 . . Council of Carthage declares that ‘babies should be baptized immediately’ 412-417 . . Debate between Pelagius and Augustine regarding ‘original sin’ 417 . . Council of Carthage condemns Pelagian view as heresy. Infant baptism becomes a fixture in Catholicism 1201, 1208 . . Pope Innocent III writes in favor of infant baptism 1545-1563 . . Council of Trent pronounces "anathema" upon anyone denying infant baptism 1794 . . Papal bull Auctorem Fidei condemns Jansenist Synod, which called limbo a heresy 1951 . . Pope Pius XII stresses necessity of infant baptism by encouraging midwives to perform the rite in emergencies 1958 . . Vatican decrees ‘infants are to be baptized as soon as possible’ 1963-1965 . . Second Vatican Council decrees salvation possible without baptism. Orders infant baptism rite revised 1980 . . Vatican reinforces custom of infant baptism, saying it ‘knows no other way for children to enter eternal happiness’
Response:
Gordon Hammerle wrote in arc-rc: So baptizing a baby guarentees Heaven for the baby?
Nobody said that. You know better. Do you use one of those "Bibles" that leave this out? Acts 8:35-38
So, you come to arc-rc to make a KJV-only, Textus Receptus argument?! We could care less what interpolations your cult-idol has in it. Doesn’t it say the eunuch could be baptized only if he believed?
You know good and well that the Bible does NOT say that. That is a tradition of men that was interpolated into a few mss. in patristic times. The KJV translators aren’t to be blamed for being fooled, however, since they were following a good Catholic’s (Erasmus) rather hasty and sometimes flawed production of a Greek text of the NT, and it is also in many of the Medieval mss. of the ultimate Catholic Bible, the Vulgate. But these productions date to the dawn of the era in which Bible scholars rediscovered the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts … we’ve come a long way since then. What’s circumcision got to do with going to Heaven?
Precisely the same thing that obeying God and assenting to His Covenant has to do with going to heaven. Are you saying everyone prior to Abraham went to Hell?
Are you saying that God did not make a Covenant with Abraham and his descendents? Are you saying that this passage in Romans is wrong?
<snip a citation that we all know Doesn’t this passage say that Abraham was declared righteous BEFORE circumcision and that circumcision was merely a sign?
Circumcision did not make Abraham or his descendents righteous any more than Baptism makes us righteous. But do you not recall, you who thumps his Bible so loudly, that God told Abraham, "The uncircumcised male, whose foreskin has not been circumcised – that person must be cut off from his people: he has broken my covenant"??? Righteous or not, the uncircumcised were pitchfork-bait. So too, in the New Covenant, God tells us that "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you," and, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Gordon, do you not see that you are tempting God to cut-off your unbaptized Children, to send them to Hell, should they die before "being saved" by your traditions of men? Do you really want your precious children and infants to be pitchfork bait? Do you not know that it doesn’t specifically include infants?
And have you forgotten that it does not specifically EXCLUDE them? No where, I say NOWHERE, in the Bible is it written "Thou shalt not baptize those under the age of reason." Are you one of those who try all religions just in case one is correct so you’ll have your bases covered?
Have you not heard that Catholics know for a fact that theirs is the one True Church? What’s that got to with infants and baptism and going to Heaven?
Everything. That is the prooftext for those good individuals in the NT who heard the Gospel and then marched their entire households to the baptistry font. As a slave or servant or wife or child, you were whatever relgion that daddy was, and if daddy got baptized, so too then did the missus and little junior, not to mention the domestic help. Do you not recall that St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 7:14, the faith of even one Christian parent renders a child holy? Have you so soon forgotten that St. Peter declares that the gift of Baptism, the Holy Spirit and the Promise of Salvation is "for you ~and your children~ and for those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God is calling to himself". Gordon, your Baptist sect has bet the farm on defending a doctrine that is NOT even mentioned in the Bible. At the same time, you IGNORE the Eucharistic Presence of Christ, which is mentioned in the Bible over and over and over agin. I know that you have friends and family in your church, but to save your soul you should repent and come out of your man-made religious system. Come to Jesus. Come to His Church. Dave
Response:
Should Babies Be Baptized? Only if the parents want them to go to heaven.
So baptizing a baby guarentees Heaven for the baby? Read the Bible book of Acts for yourself, and you will quickly see that among early Christians, baptism was for those capable of ‘hearing and receiving words’ with understanding and of ‘doing penance.’ Ah. You’re a Liar-for-Jesus, huh? The Bible makes it crystal clear that Infant Baptism is correct.
Do you use one of those "Bibles" that leave this out? Acts 8:35-38 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. {36} And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? {37} And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. {38} And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Doesn’t it say the eunuch could be baptized only if he believed? Did you not know that Baptism explicitly replaces circumcision as the mark of God’s people? Do you not recall that under the Old Covenant, infants were circumcised at the age of EIGHT DAYS old?
What’s circumcision got to do with going to Heaven? Are you saying everyone prior to Abraham went to Hell? Are you saying that this passage in Romans is wrong? Romans 4:6-12 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, {7} Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. {8} Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. {9} Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. {10} How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. {11} And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: {12} And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. Doesn’t this passage say that Abraham was declared righteous BEFORE circumcision and that circumcision was merely a sign? Do you not recall that entire houselholds were baptized by the apostles, without INFANTS being excluded.
Do you not know that it doesn’t specifically include infants? Are you one of those who try all religions just in case one is correct so you’ll have your bases covered? Do you not recall Joshua, the great exemplar of faith, who said "as for me and my house, we shall follow the Lord?
What’s that got to with infants and baptism and going to Heaven? Gordon http://www2.go-concepts.com/~gordon Before you buy.
Response:
Should Babies Be Baptized? The infant hardly looks like a sinner. Yet washing away sin is what this age-old rite is all about. The godfather thrice renounces Satan and his works. A priest then takes a small vessel and gently pours water upon the forehead of the child three times, saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." FOR nearly two millenniums infants have been baptized in a ceremony like this. Parents may describe it as a deeply moving experience. However, does the practice find its origin in God’s Word? Catholic theologians admit that it does not.-See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 69. Read the Bible book of Acts for yourself, and you will quickly see that among early Christians, baptism was for those capable of ‘hearing and receiving words’ with understanding and of ‘doing penance.’ (Acts 2:14, 22, 38, 41, Douay Version) Hardly things an infant could do! True, the Bible does speak of whole households, such as that of Cornelius, being baptized. But even then, baptism was for those "hearing the word"-not for infants.-Acts 10:44-47. A Tradition of God or of Men? Unable to point to a Biblical precedent, the Vatican says, "The practice of baptizing infants is considered a rule of immemorial tradition." But was this tradition laid down by Jesus Christ? No, for infant baptism did not catch on until quite some time after the death of the apostles. At the end of the second century, church father Tertullian argued, "Let [children] become Christians when they have become able to know Christ." The apostle Paul warned, however, that eventually there would come a time "when people will not tolerate sound doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:3, The New American Bible) After the apostles died and were no longer able to ‘act as a restraint,’ unscriptural practices began to creep into Christian worship. (2 Thessalonians 2:6) Among them was infant baptism. But infant baptism did not become the rule until the fifth century. The most popular theory of all, though, has proved to be that the souls of unbaptized infants are housed in limbo. This word literally means "border" (such as the border, or hem, of a garment) and describes a region that supposedly stands on the borders of hell. For theologians, limbo is a very convenient notion. It at least modifies the horrifying specter of suffering infants. But like any man-made theory, limbo has its problems. Why is it not mentioned in Scripture? Can babies get out of limbo? And why should innocent babies have to go there in the first place? Understandably, the church makes a point of saying that limbo "is not official Catholic teaching."-New Catholic Encyclopedia. Baptizing a small child does not help him develop in faith. In fact, it violates Jesus’ command: "Go therefore and make disciples [or, "make learners"] . . . baptizing them." (Matthew 28:19) Baptism is meaningless unless one is old enough to be a disciple. True, there is an "immemorial tradition" for infant baptism. But did not Jesus condemn those who ‘made the word of God invalid because of their tradition’?-Matthew 15:6. If a Christian’s child should die before baptism, parents need not fear that he burns in hell or lingers in limbo. The Bible teaches that the dead are unconscious. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) Parents can thus take comfort in Jesus’ promise that "the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out" with the prospect of life in a restored Paradise. (John 5:28, 29; Luke 23:43) This Bible-based hope is of far more comfort than are changeable-and confusing-human traditions. Highlights of the History of Infant Baptism Date (C.E.) Event c. 193 . . Tertullian argues for adult baptism 253 . . Council of Carthage declares that ‘babies should be baptized immediately’ 412-417 . . Debate between Pelagius and Augustine regarding ‘original sin’ 417 . . Council of Carthage condemns Pelagian view as heresy. Infant baptism becomes a fixture in Catholicism 1201, 1208 . . Pope Innocent III writes in favor of infant baptism 1545-1563 . . Council of Trent pronounces "anathema" upon anyone denying infant baptism 1794 . . Papal bull Auctorem Fidei condemns Jansenist Synod, which called limbo a heresy 1951 . . Pope Pius XII stresses necessity of infant baptism by encouraging midwives to perform the rite in emergencies 1958 . . Vatican decrees ‘infants are to be baptized as soon as possible’ 1963-1965 . . Second Vatican Council decrees salvation possible without baptism. Orders infant baptism rite revised 1980 . . Vatican reinforces custom of infant baptism, saying it ‘knows no other way for children to enter eternal happiness’
Response:
This article is a prime example of those who "will not tolerate sound doctrine."
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Should Babies Be Baptized? The infant hardly looks like a sinner. Yet washing away sin is what this age-old rite is all about. The godfather thrice renounces Satan and his works. A priest then takes a small vessel and gently pours water upon the forehead of the child three times, saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." FOR nearly two millenniums infants have been baptized in a ceremony like this. Parents may describe it as a deeply moving experience. However, does the practice find its origin in God’s Word? Catholic theologians admit that it does not.-See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 69. Read the Bible book of Acts for yourself, and you will quickly see that among early Christians, baptism was for those capable of ‘hearing and receiving words’ with understanding and of ‘doing penance.’ (Acts 2:14, 22, 38, 41, Douay Version) Hardly things an infant could do! True, the Bible does speak of whole households, such as that of Cornelius, being baptized. But even then, baptism was for those "hearing the word"-not for infants.-Acts 10:44-47. A Tradition of God or of Men? Unable to point to a Biblical precedent, the Vatican says, "The practice of baptizing infants is considered a rule of immemorial tradition." But was this tradition laid down by Jesus Christ? No, for infant baptism did not catch on until quite some time after the death of the apostles. At the end of the second century, church father Tertullian argued, "Let [children] become Christians when they have become able to know Christ." The apostle Paul warned, however, that eventually there would come a time "when people will not tolerate sound doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:3, The New American Bible) After the apostles died and were no longer able to ‘act as a restraint,’ unscriptural practices began to creep into Christian worship. (2 Thessalonians 2:6) Among them was infant baptism. But infant baptism did not become the rule until the fifth century. The most popular theory of all, though, has proved to be that the souls of unbaptized infants are housed in limbo. This word literally means "border" (such as the border, or hem, of a garment) and describes a region that supposedly stands on the borders of hell. For theologians, limbo is a very convenient notion. It at least modifies the horrifying specter of suffering infants. But like any man-made theory, limbo has its problems. Why is it not mentioned in Scripture? Can babies get out of limbo? And why should innocent babies have to go there in the first place? Understandably, the church makes a point of saying that limbo "is not official Catholic teaching."-New Catholic Encyclopedia. Baptizing a small child does not help him develop in faith. In fact, it violates Jesus’ command: "Go therefore and make disciples [or, "make learners"] . . . baptizing them." (Matthew 28:19) Baptism is meaningless unless one is old enough to be a disciple. True, there is an "immemorial tradition" for infant baptism. But did not Jesus condemn those who ‘made the word of God invalid because of their tradition’?-Matthew 15:6. If a Christian’s child should die before baptism, parents need not fear that he burns in hell or lingers in limbo. The Bible teaches that the dead are unconscious. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) Parents can thus take comfort in Jesus’ promise that "the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out" with the prospect of life in a restored Paradise. (John 5:28, 29; Luke 23:43) This Bible-based hope is of far more comfort than are changeable-and confusing-human traditions. Highlights of the History of Infant Baptism Date (C.E.) Event c. 193 . . Tertullian argues for adult baptism 253 . . Council of Carthage declares that ‘babies should be baptized immediately’ 412-417 . . Debate between Pelagius and Augustine regarding ‘original sin’ 417 . . Council of Carthage condemns Pelagian view as heresy. Infant baptism becomes a fixture in Catholicism 1201, 1208 . . Pope Innocent III writes in favor of infant baptism 1545-1563 . . Council of Trent pronounces "anathema" upon anyone denying infant baptism 1794 . . Papal bull Auctorem Fidei condemns Jansenist Synod, which called limbo a heresy 1951 . . Pope Pius XII stresses necessity of infant baptism by encouraging midwives to perform the rite in emergencies 1958 . . Vatican decrees ‘infants are to be baptized as soon as possible’ 1963-1965 . . Second Vatican Council decrees salvation possible without baptism. Orders infant baptism rite revised 1980 . . Vatican reinforces custom of infant baptism, saying it ‘knows no other way for children to enter eternal happiness’
Response:
Should Babies Be Baptized?
Only if the parents want them to go to heaven. Read the Bible book of Acts for yourself, and you will quickly see that among early Christians, baptism was for those capable of ‘hearing and receiving words’ with understanding and of ‘doing penance.’
Ah. You’re a Liar-for-Jesus, huh? The Bible makes it crystal clear that Infant Baptism is correct. Did you not know that Baptism explicitly replaces circumcision as the mark of God’s people? Do you not recall that under the Old Covenant, infants were circumcised at the age of EIGHT DAYS old? Do you not recall that entire houselholds were baptized by the apostles, without INFANTS being excluded. Do you not recall Joshua, the great exemplar of faith, who said "as for me and my house, we shall follow the Lord? You, sir, are utterly ignorant of the Bible, I fear. The Bible teaches that the dead are unconscious.
Oh. now I get it. You’re an Adventist, aren’t you? Definitely a Liar-for-Jesus. Dave
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.