Why Baptize a Baby?

[bbyrd009]

Ask your buddy @bbyrd009.
He's the one who made the false accusation about it . . .

ok i guess that is being taken as a put down or something, when i only mean to refer to what the RCC and Prot congregations teach, the concepts of punishment in an "afterlife," etc, "going to heaven" when you literally die, all that stuff, that cannot be maintained any kind of way in Scripture, except by simple deceptions that are easily revealed imo.

Nowhere do you read me condemning these ppl to any hell, they still reap what they sow, and our beliefs will never be judged anyway.

but obviously works come from beliefs, and these will be judged.

 

[GodsGrace]

So, tomorrow - you will PROVE that Constantine "forced" people at the point of a sword to be baptized.
Can't WAIT to see THIS . . .

This is what I said in post no. 180:

Before Constantine, only those in a Christian household were baptized, including the children. This made some sense since people were very devoted at that time...whole families went to the lions, think of it. The chances were that if one grew up in a Christian family, he would also become a Christian.

After Constantine, the church was truly corrupted, in my humble opinion.
Now EVERYONE in the state HAD to be baptized, and thus began what we could call mechanical Christianity? IOW, it began to be believed that if everyone just did what the church/state said, they would be saved.
Go to church
Go to confession
Be baptized
etc.

This was a corruption of Christianity. Baptism became meaningless.

Well BoL. Everything I said above is absolutely correct except for one little thing...
I wrote Constantine instead of Justinian.

IF you're so good at history, why didn't you just bring this to my attention instead of being so mean all the time?

Justinian was the one that forced everyone is his Kingdom to be baptized, and to accept the Catholic Creed, or Nicene Creed.
But it did all begin with Constantine and his becoming converted (maybe, who could know for sure) and the monarchs became catholic and had to answer to the Pope. As I said, this ruined the church that existed before Constantine...which is the church I respect,,,the anti-Nicene fathers.

Please note that I never brought up the Edict of Milan...YOU did. The E of M has nothing to do with my statement...it did not force religion on anyone.
Also, I NEVER stated the phrase "forced by a sword"...that is just not in my vocabulary and I never read that anyone was threatened with death when it was declared that Christianity was to be accepted by everyone.

With Constantine the stage had been set to allow Emporers to answer to the Pope and declare doctrine...this did not happen immediately.

There are many sources online which make an interesting read....

Christian emperorship[edit]
Enforcement of doctrine[edit]
The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to the gods for the spiritual health of their subjects, and after Constantine they had a duty to help the Church define orthodoxy and maintain orthodoxy.[28] The Church generally regarded the definition of doctrine as the responsibility of the bishops; the emperor's role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.[29] The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship (orthodoxy) and doctrines and dogma consisted of was for the Church to determine.[30]

source: Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia


The idea of a church/state continued with Theadosius:


Theodosius’s situation was complicated by the sharp antagonism that arose about 379 between disciplesof the Nicene Creed (according to which Jesus Christis of the same substance as God the Father) and several other Christian groups in his part of the empire. Theodosius himself, the first emperor who did not assume the title of pontifex maximus(supreme guardian of the old Roman cults), believed in the Nicene Creed, despite his baptism only after a serious illness in the fall of 380.

Out of political as well as religious motives, he energetically undertook to bring about unity of faith within the empire. His position was improved by the fact that during 379 the followers of the Nicene Creed gained ground, whereupon Theodosius on February 28, 380, without consulting the ecclesiastical authorities, issued an edict prescribing a creed that was to be binding on all subjects. Only persons who believed in the consubstantiality of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were henceforth to be considered Catholic Christians, a designation that here appears for the first time in a document.

source: Theodosius I | Roman emperor

And I'll end with Justinian, who DID enforce Christianity:

Justinian and Orthodoxy
Justinian was a fervent supporter of Orthodoxy.
Justinian viewed himself as the new Constantine the Great. He believed in a Mediterranean-wide Christian order politically, religiously and economically, united and ruled from Constantinople under a single Christian emperor. To this end he directed his great wars and his colossal activity in reconquering the western provinces from the Germanic tribes.

Perhaps the most noteworthy event occurred in 529 when the Academy in Athens (famous for being founded centuries earlier by Plato) was placed under state control by order of Justinian, effectively strangling this training school for Hellenism. Paganism was actively suppressed. The worship of Ammon at Augila in the Libyan desert was abolished, and so were the remnants of the worship of Isis on the island of Philae, in Egypt, and unrepentant Manicheans were executed in Constantinople. Justinian frequently sent out missionaries and converted numerous tribes. In Asia Minor alone, John, Bishop of Ephesus, converted 70,000 pagans.

Justinian also took a very firm stance in his support of Orthodoxy; he fought different heresiesthroughout his rule. At the beginning of his reign, he promulgated by law belief in the Holy Trinityand the Incarnation, and subsequently declared that he would deprive all disturbers of orthodoxy due process of law. He made the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed the sole symbol of the Church and accorded legal force to the canons of the four Ecumenical Councils. At the command of the sovereign, the Fifth Ecumenical Council was convened in the year 553, censuring the teachings of Origen and affirming the definitions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon. He also attempted to secure religious unity within the Empire through his (unsuccessful) dialogues with the non-Chalcedonians. He appointed Theodora, who was the daughter of an Oriental Orthodoxpriest, as his special envoy to deal with those who rejected Chalcedon. Besides Monophysitismand Miaphysitism, other ecclesiastical tensions had begun to emerge between the East and the West; the "Three Chapters" controversy brought all of these to a head (cf. external links).

source: Justinian - OrthodoxWiki

 

[GodsGrace]

Ok....now you really have me confused.

We went from being imputed with Adams sin to being held responsible for Adams sin??? I never said suggested implied or thought we are responsible for Adams sin. I said we are imputed with Adams sin, just like scripture says.

Who taught you that Romans 5 is referring to the change of our nature due to Adams fall? Or are you self taught?

How are you conflating John 3 with Romans 5? I don’t see the connection?

Curious Mary

Being imputed with a sin and being responsible for it is the same thing.
Thus your confusion....

Definition of impute
transitive verb

1: to lay the responsibility or blame for (something) often falsely or unjustlyThe economic sins imputed to Tito had all been committed to a greater extent by the communist parties of neighbouring countries.— Hugh Seton-Watson

2: to credit or ascribe (something) to a person or a cause : ATTRIBUTEour vices as well as our virtues have been imputed to bodily derangement

source: Merriam Webster

impute verb [ T ]
UK /ɪmˈpjuːt/ US
responsible for something that has happened, especiallysomething bad, or that something is the cause of something else:

For purposes of the company's violations, the conduct of its officialsand employees may be imputed to the firm

source: Cambridge

I'm not "self-taught". I don't have a PhD after my name.
I learned from the Catholic Church and from the Nazarene Church.
Of course, I have done studies on my own to establish which theology I most agree with, although I see good in both Catholicism and Protestantism.

For John 3 and Romans 5, I have to reread what I posted.
Be right back.

 

[Marymog]

First and foremost, by studying them out and asking/listening to God Himself.

Thanks Jane,

That’s a good method for sure. The CC does the same thing you do. They study the issue at hand, ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit and then make a decision on what the Truth of Scripture is. Just like at the Council of Jerusalem, Hippo, Carthage etc. The CC has hundreds of men (Cardinals and Bishops) who study the issue, ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit and then decide on what the Truth of Scripture is.

Of those times that you disagree with the CC Truth (interpretation of Scripture) do you ever think how could all of those faith filled men have gotten it so wrong and came to a conclusion opposite of yours?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Being imputed with a sin and being responsible for it is the same thing.
Thus your confusion....

Definition of impute
transitive verb

1: to lay the responsibility or blame for (something) often falsely or unjustlyThe economic sins imputed to Tito had all been committed to a greater extent by the communist parties of neighbouring countries.— Hugh Seton-Watson

2: to credit or ascribe (something) to a person or a cause : ATTRIBUTEour vices as well as our virtues have been imputed to bodily derangement

source: Merriam Webster

impute verb [ T ]
UK /ɪmˈpjuːt/ US
responsible for something that has happened, especiallysomething bad, or that something is the cause of something else:

For purposes of the company's violations, the conduct of its officialsand employees may be imputed to the firm

source: Cambridge

I'm not "self-taught". I don't have a PhD after my name.
I learned from the Catholic Church and from the Nazarene Church.
Of course, I have done studies on my own to establish which theology I most agree with, although I see good in both Catholicism and Protestantism.

For John 3 and Romans 5, I have to reread what I posted.
Be right back.

Thank you GG. No doubt, God is in both Catholicism and Protestantism.

I see where the confusion is coming in. Since we are talking theology here I am using the definition of impute when used in a theological way: ascribe (righteousness, guilt, sin, etc.) to someone by virtue of a similar quality in another.

We have a “similar quality” as Adam (sin) and, as scripture says, that “similar quality” was brought into this world by one man and ascribed to all men.

With that said it is clear that we are not responsible for Adams sin. We are only imputed with it, just like scripture says.

I applaud you for being thirsty to learn the word of God. There are some great theologians who have influenced all of Christianity with their studies and interpretations of scripture. The CC and the bigger Protestant denominations have dozens if not hundreds of men/women who study scripture to determine the Truth of scripture and what doctrines they are going to follow.

When you come to a different conclusion about the Truth of Scripture than the CC or those other Protestant denominations how do you reconcile that difference?

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Ok....now you really have me confused.

We went from being imputed with Adams sin to being held responsible for Adams sin??? I never said suggested implied or thought we are responsible for Adams sin. I said we are imputed with Adams sin, just like scripture says.

Who taught you that Romans 5 is referring to the change of our nature due to Adams fall? Or are you self taught?

How are you conflating John 3 with Romans 5? I don’t see the connection?

Curious Mary

OK. Here's what I posted re John 3 and Romans 5:

Romans 5 is referring to the change in our nature due to Adams fall,,,,it does not state we are personally responsible for his sin. This would not be justice from a just God.

If we were imputed his sin, any child that died would go to hell since he would not be born from above as in John 3.

John 3: Jesus said that ONLY if we are born from above do we see the Kingdom of God. I believe that in John 3 He meant the spiritual Kingdom of God here on Earth. Jesus also spoke of a literal Kingdom of God at the end of times. Whichever one you care to believe He's speaking to in John 3, it means that we must accept Jesus and be forgiven of our sins to see the K of G.

IF we are all imputed with the sin of Adam, how could we possibly go to heaven if we die in our sin -- which a baby would. This is the whole problem with imputation of Adam's sin...This is what Augustine was talking about when he came up with the doctrine of Original Sin.

Romans 5: This is speaking to our nature.
Before the fall, we had a holy nature, we could have walked with God had Adam not sinned.
After the fall, we have a sin nature which is the RESULT of the fall.
We are not imputed with Adam's sin...we suffer the consequences of it.
Death and a sin nature.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you GG. No doubt, God is in both Catholicism and Protestantism.

I see where the confusion is coming in. Since we are talking theology here I am using the definition of impute when used in a theological way: ascribe (righteousness, guilt, sin, etc.) to someone by virtue of a similar quality in another.

We have a “similar quality” as Adam (sin) and, as scripture says, that “similar quality” was brought into this world by one man and ascribed to all men.

With that said it is clear that we are not responsible for Adams sin. We are only imputed with it, just like scripture says.

I applaud you for being thirsty to learn the word of God. There are some great theologians who have influenced all of Christianity with their studies and interpretations of scripture. The CC and the bigger Protestant denominations have dozens if not hundreds of men/women who study scripture to determine the Truth of scripture and what doctrines they are going to follow.

When you come to a different conclusion about the Truth of Scripture than the CC or those other Protestant denominations how do you reconcile that difference?

Mary

You're calling it "similar quality"...I'm calling it the sin nature. In Catholicism it's called concupesence. Spelling might be wrong. It's the TENDENCY toward sin. It's the "leftover" of Adam's sin. We are not personally responsible for Adam's sin, but we suffer from its effects.

I find that there are not many differences. Some Catholic theologians believe Jesus had brothers. In any case, I don't think it makes much difference,,,I still adore Mary and love and respect her.

Catholics also believe God forgives sin,,,not the priest. We could humbly go to a priest and its believed that Jesus gave the authority to forgive to the Apostles and they passed it on.

I do have a problem with purgatory. I've told all 3 of my priest friends that I don't believe it could exist. One agrees with me that it's not found in scripture. It makes no difference if we believe it or not. I DO think it takes away from Jesus' sacrifice. IOW, if we have to purge our sins, why did Jesus have to die? He died to release us from satan's power and the fear of death. Where does it say we have to have our sins purged? I don't believe 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is speaking of purgatory. It's obvious that it isn't.

And we agree as to Justification and Sanctification although Catholics call it ongoing Justification.

As far as I'm concerned,,,I don't think there should be such divides. The reformation did cause divides --- but I also believe some change had to happen.

Do YOU agree with every single doctrine/dogma of the CC?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Thanks Jane,

That’s a good method for sure. The CC does the same thing you do. They study the issue at hand, ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit and then make a decision on what the Truth of Scripture is. Just like at the Council of Jerusalem, Hippo, Carthage etc. The CC has hundreds of men (Cardinals and Bishops) who study the issue, ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit and then decide on what the Truth of Scripture is.

Of those times that you disagree with the CC Truth (interpretation of Scripture) do you ever think how could all of those faith filled men have gotten it so wrong and came to a conclusion opposite of yours?

Mary

Mary, I'm talking about me studying and me getting down on my knees to ask God about it and me listening to God.
If you want to relate to me here, please tell me about you getting on your knees and you conversing with God. Not more about other sinners arguing and then you looking solely towards them.

 

[Marymog]

OK. Here's what I posted re John 3 and Romans 5:

If we were imputed his sin, any child that died would go to hell since he would not be born from above as in John 3.

I don't understand this statement from you. Do you mean stillborn?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

You're calling it "similar quality"...I'm calling it the sin nature. In Catholicism it's called concupesence. Spelling might be wrong. It's the TENDENCY toward sin. It's the "leftover" of Adam's sin. We are not personally responsible for Adam's sin, but we suffer from its effects.

I find that there are not many differences. Some Catholic theologians believe Jesus had brothers. In any case, I don't think it makes much difference,,,I still adore Mary and love and respect her.

Catholics also believe God forgives sin,,,not the priest. We could humbly go to a priest and its believed that Jesus gave the authority to forgive to the Apostles and they passed it on.

I do have a problem with purgatory. I've told all 3 of my priest friends that I don't believe it could exist. One agrees with me that it's not found in scripture. It makes no difference if we believe it or not. I DO think it takes away from Jesus' sacrifice. IOW, if we have to purge our sins, why did Jesus have to die? He died to release us from satan's power and the fear of death. Where does it say we have to have our sins purged? I don't believe 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is speaking of purgatory. It's obvious that it isn't.

And we agree as to Justification and Sanctification although Catholics call it ongoing Justification.

As far as I'm concerned,,,I don't think there should be such divides. The reformation did cause divides --- but I also believe some change had to happen.

Do YOU agree with every single doctrine/dogma of the CC?

Thank you GG. FYI....It doesn't matter what some catholic theologians believe. It only matters what The Church teaches or believes because, as scripture says, The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not individual theologians.

I will gladly answer your question after you answer mine kiddo:

When you come to a different conclusion about the Truth of Scripture than the CC or those other Protestant denominations how do you reconcile that difference?

Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

Mary, I'm talking about me studying and me getting down on my knees to ask God about it and me listening to God.
If you want to relate to me here, please tell me about you getting on your knees and you conversing with God. Not more about other sinners arguing and then you looking solely towards them.

I am relating to you. You think you are right and everyone else is wrong. I don't think I am right. I think The Church is right.

Since you didn't answer my question I am going to assume you don't ever think or really don't care how all of those faith filled men (who are sinners who argue) could have gotten it so wrong and came to a conclusion opposite of yours. You just know your right and they are wrong? Scripture says that The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. In your interpeation of Scripture, what is "The Church"?

Other sinners arguing and looking solely towards them???? Huh??? You look solely toward yourself for answers. Are you not a sinner?

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

You're making a claim to the wrong guy. I know better.

Apparenlty, you don't . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't understand this statement from you. Do you mean stillborn?

Mary

No. I mean if a child dies that has not been baptized.
IF they are imputed, or take on the responsibility of Adam, then they'd have to be lost...

But since they DO NOT, then they would be saved even if they died (up until the age of reason).

 

[BreadOfLife]

At the point of a sword???
You're a funny man.
But, I don't post for you, but those that are reading along.

I'm not the one who made this historically-bankrupt claim.
YOU guys did .. . .

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you GG. FYI....It doesn't matter what some catholic theologians believe. It only matters what The Church teaches or believes because, as scripture says, The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not individual theologians.

I will gladly answer your question after you answer mine kiddo:

When you come to a different conclusion about the Truth of Scripture than the CC or those other Protestant denominations how do you reconcile that difference?

Patient Mary

I know that the OFFICIAL church teaching is that of the magesterum.

As to the answer, I answered it fully in post no. 307.
The answer has to be the cc or the protestant church. I don't have weird ideas as some do. If a verse is too difficult, I use commentaries and read a few.
One verse I'm not sure about, for instance, is John 3:5.
What is the water? Is it baptismal water or amniotic fluid?
Both make sense to me.

 

[BreadOfLife]

At first I believed @BreadOfLife was a very frustrated Catholic, and he might have reason to be since many don't even believe they're Christian.

But I see it goes beyond this. The posts are aggressive and hateful.

Ahhhh, yes - it's always "hateful" when somebody corrects you and puts you in your place . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Uh huh.

And as you have shown with your own words, you do not know the difference between...

Born of Water and Born of the Holy Spirit.
AND
Being Baptized in Water and Baptized in the Holy Spirit.

No matter. The Lord provides Understanding, when the man has prepared himself to receive His Understanding.

Read and Study, and you might figure out how to become prepared.

Glory to God,
Taken

Don't just read John 3:5.
STUDY the entire conversation.

You MIGHT just learn something about Baptism . . .

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I am relating to you. You think you are right and everyone else is wrong. I don't think I am right. I think The Church is right.

Since you didn't answer my question I am going to assume you don't ever think or really don't care how all of those faith filled men (who are sinners who argue) could have gotten it so wrong and came to a conclusion opposite of yours. You just know your right and they are wrong? Scripture says that The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. In your interpeation of Scripture, what is "The Church"?

Other sinners arguing and looking solely towards them???? Huh??? You look solely toward yourself for answers. Are you not a sinner?

Mary

*Jane takes a deep breath*

It isn't remotely about "Jane just going to do whatever and she wants". No. It's not about what I want. I am on my knees this entire time. It's about what God instructs me to do. God is my King. I look towards Him alone, because I am a disciple of Christ, a Christian. It's not about what I want, it's about following God. He is the source of Truth.

You keep asking "but what if this other person over here thinks something different?". I. don't. care. what. they. think.

If I were to compromise my relationship with God solely because of "Bob" thinks, I would no longer be a Christian-- I would be a disciple of Bob, and in direct violation of the First Great Commandment. If I were to look to them men of some council for Truth instead of God, I would be in sore need of repentance for again violating the First Great Commandment. I can only keep my eyes focused on Christ and continue to listen. Scripture is VERY clear that Truth is received from God, and not men (see Galatians 1).

As to Bob--- Bob has his own relationship with God, and if Bob does/doesn't listen right then that's Bob's deal, for better or worse. I can only keep my eyes focused on Christ and continue to listen.





Mary, I respect that you trust the Catholic Church and look to them for Truth. That's you choice, your deal, for better or worse. I respect that's a choice you make for you. But as for me, I do not. I am thrilled to have you share your love of Christ here- hearing various people's love of God is actually why I'm on here. I'm also thrilled to share my love of Christ with you. But I'm not interested in listening to proselytizing, just as I'm sure you're not interested in that either.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I spoke of Homosexual; the very term should notify you that is a person WHO is beyond attraction and participates in HomoSEXuality.

While you focused on YOUR IDEA, and apparently so FAMILIAR and KNOWLEDGABLE with Same Sex Attraction that you felt comfortable with your expertise to call it by an acronym..."SSA".

As you attempted to disparage me with your snarky comment..... NO MATTER TO ME, since I am not so FAMILIAR and VESTED in being Knowledgable in that practice, LIKE YOU.

Effeminates and Those who lie with the same sex shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

I didn't reveal that Knowledge, the Lord did.
I didn't make that Truth, the Lord did.

I simply Trust the Lords Word is TRUE.

I did not Condemn anyone to Hell, as you falsely claimed.

Glory to God,
Taken

I’ve given you many Bible lessons – and now it’s time for a LIFE lesson:

A HETEROsexual person is one whose sexual proclivity is towards those of the OPPOSITE sex.
A HOMOsexual person is one whose sexual proclivity is towards those of the SAME sex.

In BOTH cases, they can live an ACTIVE sexual life or an INACTIVE sexual life and STIL maintain their sexuality. In other words, Einstein – a person can be a homosexual WITHOUT engaging in homosexual sex

Now for another Bible lesson . . .
In BOTH cases – the sin is the SAME.
Heterosexual relations outside of wedlock are abominable before God.
Homosexual relations are always abominable before God.

A celibate Heterosexual does NOT sin sexually.
A celibate Homosexual does NOT sin sexually.

There ends the lesson for the day.

 

[bbyrd009]

*Jane takes a deep breath. I know that this is a difficult concept for Mary*

"when you dance with the devil, the devil don't change..."

she pretends to seeking strictly as a strategy imo,
and has already refused to hear what you are telling her, many times