Infant Baptism is not given in scripture.

[Marymog]

I sin everyday. By word or thought. Why? Because im a sinner. I dont need a priest to tell me to say a hail Mary to be forgiven. I go directly to God the Father. You see, Jesus fixed it for me.Praise his name.

Hi Searcher,

What verse in the NT tells you to confess your sins directly to God?

What do you make of James 5:16, John 20:23 and Acts 19:18?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

.
its just that the idea of stuffing bread into an infants mouth to remove sin

or even the parent taking the infants little hands and guiding its little hands to place money into a Catholic money box

the little innocent feller has no idea what is happening - is this not the same with infant baptism.

Hey SL,

Infants do not partake of communion and communion (what you call bread) does not remove sin.

Hope that clears up your false beliefs on the matter.

Mary

 

[Grailhunter]

Grail hunter,

Post #199 debunks your version, or the version your men taught you, of our Christian history.

Christening is a new concept and was not practiced among NT Christians.

I did not say it was practiced among "NT" Christians.

 

[Marymog]

I did not say it was practiced among "NT" Christians.

I know you didn't say that. The point is that Christening is a new concept created by modern day (within the last 500 years) Christian denominations and it is not based on the teachings of Scripture. It is based on the teachings of men, and you "agree" with this teaching of men.

Mary

 

[Grailhunter]

I know you didn't say that. The point is that Christening is a new concept created by modern day (within the last 500 years) Christian denominations and it is not based on the teachings of Scripture. It is based on the teachings of men, and you "agree" with this teaching of men.

Mary

You are right and you are right.
The Protestants made a chuch wedding ceremony a requirement to be married in the 16th century.....and I agree with that too.
Children in church is a newer concept and I agree with that....
The scriptures never put an end to polygamy or concubinage or fathers “selling” their daughter to grooms or slavery but we put an end to that…..sometimes the teaching of men can be seen as God driven or the evolution of Christianity….

 

[DJT_47]

Immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up (Luke 11:38, Mark 7:3) so baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

But back to our discussion about the Apostolic Fathers. None of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp) wrote about pouring or sprinkling HOWEVER The Didache did authorize pouring/sprinkling as a method if immersion wasn't available. The Didache was written BEFORE some NT letters and the Apostolic fathers. It was considered "scripture" by the early church.

Scripture does NOT say that pouring or sprinkling is an invalid form of baptism. Where do you get this teaching that pouring/sprinkling is an invalid form of Baptism since Scripture does not say it's invalid?

You alleged the Apostolic Fathers changed what the Apostles taught. Do you have any examples?

Curious Mary

PS maybe @David Lamb can help you out since they liked your inaccurate post

Immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up (Luke 11:38, Mark 7:3) so baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

But back to our discussion about the Apostolic Fathers. None of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp) wrote about pouring or sprinkling HOWEVER The Didache did authorize pouring/sprinkling as a method if immersion wasn't available. The Didache was written BEFORE some NT letters and the Apostolic fathers. It was considered "scripture" by the early church.

Scripture does NOT say that pouring or sprinkling is an invalid form of baptism. Where do you get this teaching that pouring/sprinkling is an invalid form of Baptism since Scripture does not say it's invalid?

You alleged the Apostolic Fathers changed what the Apostles taught. Do you have any examples?

Curious Mary

PS maybe @David Lamb can help you out since they liked your inaccurate post

Does the word 'cat' have a specific meaning? Likewise, does the word 'dog' have a specific meaning? If someone used the word cat to reference a dog, would that be OK? Could someone, cuz they felt like it, say the words cat and dog now mean the same thing? Well, there you go. That's what someone did with the word 'baptizo'. They said that other Greek words mean the same thing, distorting the meaning and actual practice of baptizing, claiming pouring and sprinkling mean the same thing. They don't. And cleansing, as you claim, is really cleansing by baptizing, through the process if dipping or submerged an item. Ah, the did ache: yes, it still does ache, like a headache. A secondary, unscriptural, uninspired creation of man.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Like who being a Christian would be against water baptism of their Baby's ? only a fool !

Like who stood against any of the Jews getting Baptised by John ?

When one is Baptised you are not Saved, but you are a member of the Church ! So now the Church has a responcability ? so do your godmother and godfather in fact and ones mum and dad have made a commitment to all in fact, it's offical dec.

If one is not worthy Christian maybe one would not want to or hide away from making such a commitment openly for your Child to all ! or not strong enough to make such openly ? why because you do not have enough faith to do so, openly to all.

Or Oh the child has to make that on his own bat ? as if water baptism saves one ? so they think such is Saved for doing so ?
No one need not inform anyone that you are Saved in fact, that is betwen God and you in fact ! Telling one you are Saved is of no value, to them. or does one think they must or owe you service ?
I know morons who demand to all that they are Saved ! but they clearly are not and are only religious nut cases, who make demands on others Thinking they are above others.

 

[Seeding Loving]

Yes - Paul is here equating Baptism to Circumcision in that He commands that we be baptized

but explains in 1Pe 3:21

:21 even baptism doth also now save us

Baptism is - (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God

a sleeping man who is dragged to a baptism would not be awake to have a good conscience toward anything - he would be sleeping - unconscious


Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision

Yet we see Roman Catholcs in the EARLY DAYS OF CHRISTIANITY demanding that

little infant babies who die without being baptized will be sent to eternal hell fire, but nearly 2000 years later Pius VI resolved this matter " In the bull “Auctorem Fidei” (1794) "

the Pope condemned the teaching that places babies into hell fire and flames and pain who have not baptized and whose sins are ONLY the sin of " ORIGINAL SIN "

Pius VI also called """ ‘ Limbo of Children """"" was not the same punishment as the punishment of the condemned as - punishment of fire....

so much for the early days.

 

[Seeding Loving]

but I was just wanting to mention that The Church of Rome does demand that a baby who is not Baptized "" specifically "" in Catholic Baptism

the baby is not free of the guilt of original sin but remains guilty of original sin and will not go to heaven - if the baby passes away before being baptized - they will have to go to purgatory and be cleansed ...

the truth is - - - the Roman Pontiffs "" Paul III, "" Benedict XIV "" and also "" Clement XIII " defended and upheld the right of Catholics to teach Augustine's views theories and doctrines regarding babies dying under original sin who ( these babies ) are condemned and to punished with the tormenting of the fire - as purification

BUT the baby would only suffer feeling a very, very mild pain, { not too hot..... for the baby was not baptized a Roman Catholic.

The Vatican website also describes how that St. Augustine elaborated on the pain that the baby would feel as he detailed - comparing of the baby who was not Roman Catholic with the pain that was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins.

in conclusion - Pius VI pronounced that it is perfectly fine to teach that babies who died with the guilt of original sin are punished but only punishment of " complete lack of the Beatific Vision " called

(“punishment of loss”), - but not sensible pains not - (the punishment of "fire").

Pius VI resolved this matter " In the bull “Auctorem Fidei” (1794) " the Pope condemned the teaching that places babies into hell fire and flames and pain who have not baptized - these unbaptized babies are to remain guilty of " ORIGINAL SIN "

Pius VI also called """ ‘ Limbo of Children """"" was not the same punishment as the punishment of the condemned as - punishment of fire....

- Limbo, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century. until the Vatican Pontiff """ Pius VI " introduced the Limbo of a Child is different from the pain Limbo of an adult.

The Vatican and Pope in essence - teaches that the term " LIMBO ‘ Limbo of Children "" is a term directly connected to a painful hell and eternal flame of hell for unbaptized babies and that although the unbaptized baby will die and go to a punishment, but the punishment was not the same punishment as the punishment of the condemned who will burn in eternal flames - punishment of fire....

The Vatican promotes this teaching but it was not until " IN THE 20 th CENTURY " the Church Authority has completely changed
and began demanding only recently in the 19th and 20th centuries - that the eventual fate of the unbaptized innocent baby who is not catholic,

their final destination / judgment day determination / judgment and eventual fate after purgatory will be based upon God's mercy.

Catholic Limbo and Purgatory and even guilt of Original Sin has just suddenly vanished for the baby in modern times - as if early days somehow was filled with little babies that were such very guilty and wicked babies, that a mandatory baptism was needed to purify the wicked little infant and cleanse the little feller from guilt.


doesn't this just complicate the finished work of Jesus on the cross to think that Jesus came to be a sacrifice and to take the punishment for a little innocent infant. don't you consider that he came to save adults who have accountability, true guilt and who have truly committed sins and knowingly done wrong.....

so many questions. a great discussion but very much a jumbled mess coming from Rome Almighty

 

[Marymog]

You are right and you are right.
The Protestants made a chuch wedding ceremony a requirement to be married in the 16th century.....and I agree with that too.
Children in church is a newer concept and I agree with that....
The scriptures never put an end to polygamy or concubinage or fathers “selling” their daughter to grooms or slavery but we put an end to that…..sometimes the teaching of men can be seen as God driven or the evolution of Christianity….

Hi Grailhunter,

Jesus says a man should be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh (Matt. 19:3-6) and Jesus defines adultery as even looking at another woman lustfully (5:27-28). Paul commands that “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). Timothy and Titus speak of husbands having only 1 wife.

Do you not believe those passages put an end to polygamy?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Does the word 'cat' have a specific meaning? Likewise, does the word 'dog' have a specific meaning? If someone used the word cat to reference a dog, would that be OK? Could someone, cuz they felt like it, say the words cat and dog now mean the same thing? Well, there you go. That's what someone did with the word 'baptizo'. They said that other Greek words mean the same thing, distorting the meaning and actual practice of baptizing, claiming pouring and sprinkling mean the same thing. They don't. And cleansing, as you claim, is really cleansing by baptizing, through the process if dipping or submerged an item. Ah, the did ache: yes, it still does ache, like a headache. A secondary, unscriptural, uninspired creation of man.

Thanks DJT. You articulated your position very well and I respect that.

FYI.....Many in the early church, during the lives of the Apostles, considered The Didache scripture and it was in the running to be included in our current bible. So for you to call it a "headache" is degrading and disregarding what your Christian forefathers, who walked and talked with the Apostles, considered VERY important to their Christian life and identity. You put Protestant writings over NT writings and I am not sure why........but I digress.

3rd time asking. The Apostolic Fathers did not write about sprinkling or pouring for baptism and you alleged the Apostolic Fathers changed what the Apostles taught. Do you have any examples?

Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

When one is Baptised you are not Saved, but you are a member of the Church !

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,..........

 

[Grailhunter]

Hi Grailhunter,

Jesus says a man should be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh (Matt. 19:3-6) and Jesus defines adultery as even looking at another woman lustfully (5:27-28). Paul commands that “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). Timothy and Titus speak of husbands having only 1 wife.

Do you not believe those passages put an end to polygamy?

Curious Mary

Whether it be polygamy or concubinage or slavery….all these things we detest today, back then to stop them would be a big deal for several reasons. It would have been a distinct event in the scriptures. Christ’s own Apostles did not like what He said about divorce….. thinking if they could not divorce their wives it would be better not to marry….it was a big deal, hard for us to understand. Now why Christ did not like divorce is a long story for a couple reasons. And that conversation was between Jews about the Mosaic Law not Christianity. Christianity did not adopt “the Letter of Divorcement”

but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28 This verse pertains to a situation were looking is a prelude to adultery…in other words the lady was married.

(1 Cor. 7:2). Timothy and Titus speak of husbands having only 1 wife
1st Cor 7:2 is an endorsement of marriage to keep from sinning. Then if a person was a “church” leader….Paul said they should only have one wife….which points to the fact that this was an exception.

Then there is the history of it….The Jewish-Christians still looked to the Mosaic Law as a back ground and customs. They practiced polygamy and concubinage. The Jews practiced polygamy and concubinage for centuries after the biblical period. Early Christian writings did not forbid polygamy and concubinage and Martin Luther did not forbid it because he said the scriptures did not forbid it. The Ecumenical Councils put an end to practicing polygamy and concubinage.

The customs of Jewish relationships were so strong that if Christ would have ended the practice of polygamy and concubinage it would have disqualified Christianity for consideration. Understanding time periods is a challenge, for example if Christ tried to stop slavery it would have destroyed the economic structure of that time period.

Now as far as the Gentile-Christians, polygamy and concubinage was not part of their customs. So they practiced it very seldom. They brought wedding ceremonies into Christianity where it was a pledge between a man and a woman. Still voluntary and the Catholic Church had no use for it until the Protestants made a church wedding mandatory to married in the 16th century.