What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Marymog]

Your last sentence is correct.

And I don't have time for your nonsense.

Translation: I put my foot in my mouth and have no evidence of my accusation against you.

 

[Marymog]

All you and Bread now how to do is ridicule persons and call them unpleasant names.

Please give evidence of me doing this or apologize.

Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

I do not agree with many of your beliefs.
I do not consider you a friend.
I do not consider you speaking for me, things I have not said for myself, as upstanding.
I do consider you addressing me by names other than my forum name as disrespectful.

Reading the first time around the majority of what you write is not pleasant, so no I will not DO as you request and thumb back through your posts to read them again and post them for your satisfaction.

I don't care if you agree with the teachings of The Church (what you call my beliefs). That is your choice.

I consider you a friend because I am like Christ in that way and I adhere to Scripture: Matthew 9:10, 1 John 4:7-8, 1 Thess. 3:12 etc etc. If you choose not to be Christ like and not adhere to Scripture, that is up to you.

I don't know what you mean by speaking for you. That makes no sense. I have challenged you to prove your accusations against me. You failed!

I do not recall addressing you by anything other than your forum name.

Here was the challenge to you: Quote my indiscretions or apologize. If you are able to quote me, I will apologize.

You were unable to quote me which means you made a false accusation.

I know your EXCUSE for not quoting me was because you didn't want to thumb back thru my posts to read them again for MY satisfaction. Here is the truth. You made a false accusation and you were caught. Both you and @GodsGrace have been exposed by little ol' Marymog and you have inserted your foot in your mouth.

Mary

 

[Taken]

[QUOTE="Marymog, post: 1880645, member: 7405"

I don't know what you mean by speaking for you. That makes no sense. I have challenged you to prove your accusations against me. You failed! [/QUOTE]

Marymog
Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017

Taken said:
Lie. Not once have I said, I was taught by Protestant men.

So you study Catholic men and repeat what they have taught?
You don't! You repeat what Protestant men teach sooooo it's not a lie kiddo

You ask a question to me, then answer FOR me….IS you speaking FOR me what I never Claimed.

My forum name is not “Kiddo”.

One example is sufficient.

Your posts are full of you speaking for others and calling members names other than their forum names.

I have never claimed Protestant men or Catholic men are MY Teachers.

I have expressly claimed Christ Jesus IS my Teacher.

Example.

Apt 18, 2024 Taken quote:

“And Personally, Christ Jesus IS my high Priest and my Teacher and my FULL Trust is in Him, not human men appointed by human men.”

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[GodsGrace]

I’m not sure that you ARE a “fellow brother in Christ”.
A fellow brother in Christ wouldn’t LIE about or misrepresent what we believe

If you truly were a fellow brother in Christ – we wouldn’t be having this conversation because I would never have had to rebuke you for attacking His Church . . .

You and Marymog should learn the difference between
the Chuch
and
the church.

It would be nice.

And, whether or not one is saved is not for YOU to decide.
I'd leave that decision to God if I were you.

And, I think your head is so big that it's about to blow up.
YOU are not going to save the CC Bread.

As things stand right now it's going to that place in a handbasket.
And YOU are not helping it any.

It's too bad it didn't remain as it was in the beginning but decided to add all those
dogma
doctrine
disciplines
Some of which, it is rather sorry that it did, BUT
too late to change - the lay will just not accept any change.

BTW, would you care to explain WHY infants were baptized in the early church and
WHY infants were baptized after Augustine?

And which do YOU agree with more ---
since the early church changed its position.

(Please note that I used the correct spelling of church).

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't care if you agree with the teachings of The Church (what you call my beliefs). That is your choice.

I consider you a friend because I am like Christ in that way and I adhere to Scripture: Matthew 9:10, 1 John 4:7-8, 1 Thess. 3:12 etc etc. If you choose not to be Christ like and not adhere to Scripture, that is up to you.

I don't know what you mean by speaking for you. That makes no sense. I have challenged you to prove your accusations against me. You failed!

I do not recall addressing you by anything other than your forum name.

Here was the challenge to you: Quote my indiscretions or apologize. If you are able to quote me, I will apologize.

You were unable to quote me which means you made a false accusation.

I know your EXCUSE for not quoting me was because you didn't want to thumb back thru my posts to read them again for MY satisfaction. Here is the truth. You made a false accusation and you were caught. Both you and @GodsGrace have been exposed by little ol' Marymog and you have inserted your foot in your mouth.

Mary

Or, like myself, @Taken doesn't wish to waste his time arguing with you over nonsensical personal issues.

Better to use the time to discuss what the church got wrong.

Notice I spelled church correctly.
It's something the CC actually teaches, but apparently,
you STILL don't know the difference.
No matter.

 

[BreadOfLife]

God will not let you get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins unless you repent.

I was already Baptized in the name of (by the Authority of) Jesus Christ when I was Baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit - as prescribed by Jesus Himself (Matt. 28:19)

What is the name of the son per that verse?

The name of the Son is Jesus.
"Christ" is on of His TITLEES.

If you were smart, that would tell you that Peter is NOT talking about Jesus's personal name but by the Authority of the Christ.
Ho personal name was "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus bar Joseph".

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”

Game.
Set.
MATCCH.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Speaking of people here on earth... mentions nothing about contacting the dead which is necromancy

You people do not even pray directly to the Father in Jesus Name as the Lord instructs... because you know know the Father.

Since you do not know the Father and are not born again, you people go around asking others to pray to the Father for you.

You need to believe what God's Word teaches in John 16:23, Luke 11:1-13, Matthew 6:9-13, John 15:16, John 16:23-24, 1 Peter 1:17, Hebrews 7:25, John 14:6

An idiotically ignorant statement, to be sure . . .

First of all, as the Body of Christ, we believe as Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 12. The Body is made up of MANY parts – and they ALL need each other. If YOU don’t believe this – then YOU are NOT in the Body of Christ.
Good luck with that . . .

Also - we pray to the Father, the Son AND the Holy Spirit because they are ALL God.

As for “necromancy – it is seeking oracles from the dead. In other words, Einstein – it’s about trying to glean information from the dead.
Asking a fellow member of the Body of Christ to pray FOR us is not necromancy.

Get your "facts" straight . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You and Marymog should learn the difference between
the Chuch
and
the church.
It would be nice.
And, whether or not one is saved is not for YOU to decide.
I'd leave that decision to God if I were you.

As usual, your post is filled LIES and false accusations.

I have never accused ANYONE of being “unsaved”. I DO on occasion accuse people of being malicious and dishonest – like YOU . . .

And, I think your head is so big that it's about to blow up.
YOU are not going to save the CC Bread.

As things stand right now it's going to that place in a handbasket.
And YOU are not helping it any.
It's too bad it didn't remain as it was in the beginning but decided to add all those
dogma
doctrine
disciplines
Some of which, it is rather sorry that it did, BUT
too late to change - the lay will just not accept any change.

If you’re looking for a church that exactly resembles the first century Church – you are ignorantly barking up the wrong tree.

Christ’s Church went from being an acorn to the mighty oak – the mustard seed to the largest of plants (Matt. 13:31-32).

Jesus told the leaders of His Church: “Whatever YOU BIND on earth will be bound in Heaven; whatever YOU LOOSE on earth will be loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:19, 18:18).

He told them: “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming" (John 16:13-14).

He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU” (John 16:13-14).

BTW, would you care to explain WHY infants were baptized in the early church and
WHY infants were baptized after Augustine?

And which do YOU agree with more ---
since the early church changed its position.

(Please note that I used the correct spelling of church).

Infants were ALWAYS Baptized in the Early Church – before and after Augustine.

Augustine didn’t “invent” Infant Baptism – He explained it. The Church has never changed its position ono this.
You're just so used to vomiting out LIE after LIE that you're beginning to actually believe yourself . . . that

 

[BreadOfLife]

So per Acts chapter 2, and chapter 4, etc. the disciples were wrong for baptizing Only in the name of Jesus?

Not at all.

They Baptized "in the name of the Father an of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," - which is exactly what Baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ" is.
Your heterodox version, where you only use Jesus's personal name came centuries later . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Or, like myself, @Taken doesn't wish to waste his time arguing with you over nonsensical personal issues.

Better to use the time to discuss what the church got wrong.

Doctrinally and dogmatically - the Church is not only NOT wrong - it CAN'T ne wrong because it is guided by the Holy Spirit to ALL Truth (John 16:13-15).

Either you have faith in the words of Jesus Christ - or you don't . . .
(Matt. 16:12-15, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23)

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

It's too bad it didn't remain as it was in the beginning but decided to add all those
dogma
doctrine
disciplines
Some of which, it is rather sorry that it did, BUT
too late to change - the lay will just not accept any change.

Development of doctrine doe not mean change of doctrine. This has been explained repeatedly; you just don't like it because you deny development. If a doctrine has no core or essence of meaning from the original Apostolic Teaching, it is no longer a doctrine.
Development Of Doctrine: A Corruption Of Biblical Teaching?

BTW, would you care to explain WHY infants were baptized in the early church and

It too has been explained repeatedly. As long as you are divorced from the early church, trying to explain anything to you is pointless.

WHY infants were baptized after Augustine?

You haven't a shred of historical evidence to support this lie.

And which do YOU agree with more ---
since the early church changed its position.

In order to survive, Protestantism was forced to invent a history of its own. There is no evidence the early church changed its position on infant baptism. You're busy covering up what the reformers taught on the matter.

 

[Behold]

Development of doctrine doe not mean change of doctrine.

Mark 7, disagrees with your cult teaching.
-
-
-
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

New Living Translation
And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others.”

English Standard Version
thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Berean Standard Bible
Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters.”

Berean Literal Bible
making void the word of God for your tradition, which you have handed down. And you do many things like such."

King James Bible
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

New King James Version
making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

New American Standard Bible
thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

NASB 1995
thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

NASB 1977
thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Legacy Standard Bible
thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Amplified Bible
so you nullify the [authority of the] word of God [acting as if it did not apply] because of your tradition which you have handed down [through the elders]. And you do many things such as that.”

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Purposes of paedobaptism:

1. As a parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament, Luke 2:21.
2. Initiate the baby into the Christian community because his parent is a Christian, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 7:14.

I baptized all my 5 kids by near submersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when they were 8 days old. I understand that the evidence for infant baptism in the Bible is not explicit and is debatable. So, when my kids were teenagers, I told them that if they believed that was sufficient, there would be no need to be baptized again; but if not, feel free to have an official adult believer's baptism from a reputable local church.

Origen & Cyprian On Baptism​

Origen (c. 185-c. 254)

In the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit was given by the imposition of the apostles’ hands in baptism. From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.
(Origen, De Principiis, Book I, ch. 3, 2)

Anglican patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly summarizes Origen’s view of baptism:

It is the unique means of obtaining remission of sins [Exhort. ad mart. 30], it frees us from the power of the Devil and makes us members of the Church as Christ’s body [Hom. in Exod. 5, 5; in Rom. 8, 5]. Even little children, he assumes [In Rom. 5, 9; hom. in Luc. 14 ], being defiled with sin, must be baptized. His normal teaching [De princ. 2, 10, 7; hom. in Exod. 5, 5] is that the Spirit is received in baptism . . . The Spirit descends upon the Christian at his baptism . .
[Hom. in Luc 22; 27] (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised edition, 1978, 208)

Cyprian (210-258)

I used to regard it as a difficult matter, and especially as difficult in respect of my character at that time, that a man should be capable of being born again — a truth which the divine mercy had announced for my salvation — and that a man quickened to a new life in the layer of saving water should be able to put off what he had previously been; and, although retaining all his bodily structure, should be himself changed in heart and soul. (Epistle 1: To Donatus, 3)

By the help of the water of new birth, the stain of former years had been washed away, and a light from above, serene and pure, had been infused into my reconciled heart — after that, by the agency of the Spirit breathed from heaven, a second birth had restored me to a new man — then, in a wondrous manner, doubtful things at once began to assure themselves to me, hidden things to be revealed, dark things to be enlightened, what before had seemed difficult began to suggest a means of accomplishment, what had been thought impossible, to be capable of being achieved; so that I was enabled to acknowledge that what previously, being born of the flesh, had been living in the practice of sins, was of the earth earthly, but had now begun to be of God, and was animated by the Spirit of holiness. (Epistle 1: To Donatus, 4)

. . . their past sins are to be done away in baptism . . . (Epistle 22: To the Clergy Abiding at Rome, 3)

. . . the saving grace of baptism . . . (Epistle 51: To Antonianus About Cornelius and Novatian, 22)

. . . the sanctification of baptism . . . (Epistle 54: To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus and Felicissimus, or Against the Heretics, 13)

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. . . .

Moreover, belief in divine Scripture declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift. . . . But in that is expressed the divine and spiritual equality, that all men are like and equal, since they have once been made by God; and our age may have a difference in the increase of our bodies, according to the world, but not according to God; unless that very grace also which is given to the baptized is given either less or more, according to the age of the receivers, whereas the Holy Spirit is not given with measure, but by the love and mercy of the Father alike to all. For God, as He does not accept the person, so does not accept the age; since He shows Himself Father to all with well-weighed equality for the attainment of heavenly grace. (Epistle 58: To Fidus, on the Baptism of Infants, 2-3)

But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted — and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another. (Epistle 58: To Fidus, on the Baptism of Infants, 5)

This was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, . . . (Epistle 58: To Fidus, on the Baptism of Infants, 6)


. . . those who were made sons of God by the generation of baptism. . . . by baptism the Holy Spirit is received . . . the Lord speaks to the Samaritan woman, saying, Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him, shall not thirst forever. [John 4:13-14] By which is also signified the very baptism of saving water, which indeed is once received, and is not again repeated. (Epistle 62: To Caecilius, 8)

. . . the water of life eternal, should be given to believers in baptism, . . . (Epistle 62: To Caecilius, 9)

It is required, then, that the water should first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, that it may wash away by its baptism the sins of the man who is baptized; because the Lord says by Ezekiel the prophet: Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness; and from all your idols will I cleanse you: a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you. [Ezekiel 36:25-26] (Epistle 69: To Januarius and Other Numidian Bishops, on Baptizing Heretics, 1)

. . . he must be baptized, that he may become a sheep, because in the holy Church is the one water which makes sheep. (Epistle 70: To Quintus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, 2)

And now also, when we had met together, bishops as well of the province of Africa as of Numidia, to the number of seventy-one, we established this same matter once more by our judgment, deciding that there is one baptism which is appointed in the Catholic Church; and that by this those are not re-baptized, but baptized by us, who at any time come from the adulterous and unhallowed water to be washed and sanctified by the truth of the saving water. (Epistle 72: To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, 1)

. . . the opportunity to attain the grace of the life-giving layer and of saving baptism. (Epistle 72: To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, 3)

But it is manifest where and by whom remission of sins can be given; to wit, that which is given in baptism. (Epistle 72: To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, 7)

Origen & Cyprian On Baptism

I document the views of Origen (c. 185-c. 254) & Cyprian (210-258) on baptism: particularly baptismal regeneration: all of them consistent with Catholic teaching.

www.patheos.com

 

[GodsGrace]

Doctrinally and dogmatically - the Church is not only NOT wrong - it CAN'T ne wrong because it is guided by the Holy Spirit to ALL Truth (John 16:13-15).

Either you have faith in the words of Jesus Christ - or you don't . . .
(Matt. 16:12-15, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23)

Are you going to explain
WHY infants were baptized in the early church
and
WHY they were baptized after Augustine?

It would be nice since you know so much.
Thanks.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

So per Acts chapter 2, and chapter 4, etc. the disciples were wrong for baptizing Only in the name of Jesus?

You should argue with Jesus about this.

Jesus taught that His disciples were to baptize others in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

A person who is baptized in Jesus' name is someone who has believed in Jesus as Savior. This shortened version stated in Acts 2 and 4 did not negate what Jesus taught, but rather emphasized salvation exclusively in Jesus. The practice of the early church was to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit as Jesus taught, emphasizing the Triune nature of God.

Catholics do not practice necromancy

If that were actually true they would cease from praying to / talking to those that have died physically and have been separated from this world we are still living in.

Catholics are not Christians, they are not born again, and they are not going to Heaven.

That's because they follow man made catholic doctrine rather than what the Lord teaches in His Word.

According to Jesus, death cannot separate the faithful—such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—from God.

You're not God, so you have zero contact with those separated from this world.

The sad thing is... you people reject Jesus as being the ONLY mediator between God and man... so you folks out calling on others when you should be praying directly to ther Father in Jesus Name as the Lord instructed His followers to do.

The catholics do not follow Jesus, instead they follow man made doctrine that is not of God.

 

[GodsGrace]

Development of doctrine doe not mean change of doctrine. This has been explained repeatedly; you just don't like it because you deny development. If a doctrine has no core or essence of meaning from the original Apostolic Teaching, it is no longer a doctrine.
Development Of Doctrine: A Corruption Of Biblical Teaching?

Oh please Jude.
You don't even know me.
Spare yourself the typing.

Confession as the CC teaches it today was not done so in the early church.
Purgatory was not taught in the early church.

This is the idea:

IF the church decides to change its mind about something....
It was WRONG either BEFORE or AFTER.

We had all the teachings we needed in the first 300 years after Jesus ascended.
The church should not have made any changes.
This is my belief.
Am I allowed to have a belief based on facts or do I blindly follow the CC down incorrect paths?

What is a Novena? How is it biblical?
Confession is involved.
How were persons confessed right after Jesus?
How does a Saint and/or a Pope give indulgences?
Don't you think only God can judge persons and based on
Romans 2:6
Or John 5:28
Or a myriad of other verses that do NOT support indulgences.

It too has been explained repeatedly. As long as you are divorced from the early church, trying to explain anything to you is pointless.

You haven't a shred of historical evidence to support this lie.

This is funny.
But I'm waiting on @BreadOfLife to instruct us on baptism and I don't mean this nonsense that's going on in this thread.

Or, maybe You'd like to have a go at it.

In order to survive, Protestantism was forced to invent a history of its own. There is no evidence the early church changed its position on infant baptism. You're busy covering up what the reformers taught on the matter.

I don't care for the reformers.
I'm an orthodox Christian with orthodox beliefs.

If you don't know how the church changed its position on infant baptism, I suggest you find out.

And I don't mean after the Reformation of 1,500AD.
I'm talking about the 5th century.

You know, it would be pleasant to speak in a nice and civil manner,
but Bread and Mary mess it up good, don't they?

You shouldn't let them rub off on you.
How they behave looks really BAD for Catholicism.

 

[GodsGrace]

You should argue with Jesus about this.

Jesus taught that His disciples were to baptize others in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

A person who is baptized in Jesus' name is someone who has believed in Jesus as Savior. This shortened version stated in Acts 2 and 4 did not negate what Jesus taught, but rather emphasized salvation exclusively in Jesus. The practice of the early church was to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit as Jesus taught, emphasizing the Triune nature of God.




If that were actually true they would cease from praying to / talking to those that have died physically and have been separated from this world we are still living in.

Catholics are not Christians, they are not born again, and they are not going to Heaven.

That's because they follow man made catholic doctrine rather than what the Lord teaches in His Word.





You're not God, so you have zero contact with those separated from this world.

The sad thing is... you people reject Jesus as being the ONLY mediator between God and man... so you folks out calling on others when you should be praying directly to ther Father in Jesus Name as the Lord instructed His followers to do.

The catholics do not follow Jesus, instead they follow man made doctrine that is not of God.

Catholics follow Jesus.
Unfortunately, they've made up some doctrine that is not biblical.
But so have other denominations.
They shouldn't be demonized for it.

 

[Truther]

I was already Baptized in the name of (by the Authority of) Jesus Christ when I was Baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit - as prescribed by Jesus Himself (Matt. 28:19)

The name of the Son is Jesus.
"Christ" is on of His TITLEES.

If you were smart, that would tell you that Peter is NOT talking about Jesus's personal name but by the Authority of the Christ.
Ho personal name was "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus bar Joseph".

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”

Game.
Set.
MATCCH.

You were not baptized as a baby in the name of Jesus.

Your sins remain via absence of His name and immersion in water.

Don’t try to tell me you remember.

 

[Truther]

Not at all.

They Baptized "in the name of the Father an of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," - which is exactly what Baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ" is.
Your heterodox version, where you only use Jesus's personal name came centuries later . . .

Show me a verse in the Bible where someone was baptized with the titles Father or Holy Ghost.