What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Fred J]

Then why don’t you baptize in the actual name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost?
Why don’t you say their names?
Don’t you get what you guys are doing? You’re just repeating Jesus like a parrot instead of doing what he commanded you to do.

We don't have to say their names, for it is clearly understood to us born again and disciple in the Holy Bible. Therefore who the FATHER, the Son and the Holy Ghost is, and we act upon it in faith in Jesus name.

You guys also repeating like parrots on one thread and even out of topic, and end nowhere like the carnal adults of this world. We accept the Kingdom in the Holy Bible like 'infants' and 'children', like, as or for it is written plainly.

We have been doing the same since before and many are saved and are gifted man of GOD for the Kingdom of GOD. Even though plainly we utter, FATHER, Son and the Holy Ghost, when we baptize them in the water.

So, if you guys think after all these years, you can do a better job today by using their actual names to baptize people, go on ahead. Try finding out the actual name of the Holy Ghost, since it will be incomplete in your quest.

Let us not be lukewarm bunch of show offs, thinking we can do better and establish another denomination. Am yet to witness true saints of Jesus Christ fellowshipping the truth and not divided like the churches and believers today.

Am out of this thread, for it is dull and boring going back and forth, and end nowhere in conclusion based on the truth since there are many 'masters'.

 

[Truther]

We don't have to say their names, for it is clearly understood to us born again and disciple in the Holy Bible. Therefore who the FATHER, the Son and the Holy Ghost is, and we act upon it in faith in Jesus name.

You guys also repeating like parrots on one thread and even out of topic, and end nowhere like the carnal adults of this world. We accept the Kingdom in the Holy Bible like 'infants' and 'children', like, as or for it is written plainly.

We have been doing the same since before and many are saved and are gifted man of GOD for the Kingdom of GOD. Even though plainly we utter, FATHER, Son and the Holy Ghost, when we baptize them in the water.

So, if you guys think after all these years, you can do a better job today by using their actual names to baptize people, go on ahead. Try finding out the actual name of the Holy Ghost, since it will be incomplete in your quest.

Let us not be lukewarm bunch of show offs, thinking we can do better and establish another denomination. Am yet to witness true saints of Jesus Christ fellowshipping the truth and not divided like the churches and believers today.

Am out of this thread, for it is dull and boring going back and forth, and end nowhere in conclusion based on the truth since there are many 'masters'.

So the titles are good enough?
Or do you think the name of the father is father, and the name of the son is son, and the name of the Holy Ghost is Holy Ghost?

Should Jesus have said it something like this… baptizing them into three names of the father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost, which are father son, and Holy Ghost by name.

Or do you like how he said “in the name” (singular)?

 

[Fred J]

So the titles are good enough?
Or do you think the name of the father is father, and the name of the son is son, and the name of the Holy Ghost is Holy Ghost?

Should Jesus have said it something like this… baptizing them into three names of the father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost, which are father son, and Holy Ghost by name.

Or do you like how he said “in the name” (singular)?

Scripturally in the New Testament, can you proof otherwise, according to what you now believe and debate?

Any of the Apostles or church baptize people in the actual name of the FATHER and the Holy Spirit, apart from Jesus?

Or after Jesus the Apostles thought, the name of the FATHER is Holy, the Holy Ghost we know not, let's then baptize in the name of Jesus instead?

Or did GOD say, "Oops, sorry saints, i slept off and forgot to put it inside, and now i reveal it through Truther, listen to him." ??

My testimony is plain and simple, even scripturally, sufficient for infants and children spiritually in Christ to pick and run, and win the race.

 

[Marymog]

Read your posts.
I leave that for others on this thread to judge.
As far as I'm concerned YOU'RE POISON FOR THE CC.
And I stand by my statements.

Lol GG....You crack me up.

You should watch the video in post #1,213 that you asked me and @BreadOfLife to watch.

{quote from YOU} "Watch the first few minutes. Maybe you'll learn something important to know."

Hypocrite?

 

[Marymog]

And YES, I will not engage Catholics who do not know how to be either
CIVIL
or
RESPECTFUL toward others.

Here is a challenge to you GG.

Quote me from my post(s) where I was un-civil or disrespectful.

If you don't or can't quote me, please apologize.

(I suspect no apology will be coming my way)

 

[Marymog]

My statements are not false.
Because YOU do not agree with a statement does not make that statement false.
It is also very disengenuous of both of you to call those who do not agree with you LIARS.
This would get you IMMEDIATELY permanently banned on other forums.
Apparently neither you nor Bread know what it means to LIE.

Yes, your statements were false.

You said that priestly celibacy is a doctrine. That IS a false statement. It is NOT a doctrine; it is a discipline.

You said that it is wrong to ask that priests not marry. Your statement is not truthful and does not reflect what Scripture says. Priests are NOT asked to not marry. A single man who decides he wants to serve God's people and become a priest AGREES not to get married as long as he is a priest. AND there are some married priests. The Church agrees with Scripture in that The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better”. You have your OPINION on the matter. The Church has Scripture!

You said, "Married priests were Anglican and they've been accepted into the CC." That is not a true statement. A simple search of the internet proves you wrong. Not all married Catholic priests were Anglican.

You said, the priesthood became celibate in the 1,200's. That is not a true statement. A simple search of the internet concerning the history of celibacy in The Church shows that there was a celibacy requirement for some BEFORE the 1,200's.

I suspect you are embarrassed because I revealed your untruthful statements in public and that is why you feel you need to attack me and my character.

I do not believe it was with malice that you made those untruthful statements about The Church. I believe you made those statements in ignorance about The Church and history of Christianity.


Mary

 

[Marymog]

pot calling the kettle black

Hey Taken,

I give you the same challenge I gave @GodsGrace and others on here that have accused me of the same thing. As of today, no one has been able to fulfill that challenge and show where I have not been cordial, charitable or respectful conversation. Quote my indiscretions, or apologize.

If you are able to quote me, I will apologize.

Patient Mary

 

[Taken]

Hey Taken,

I give you the same challenge I gave @GodsGrace and others on here that have accused me of the same thing. As of today, no one has been able to fulfill that challenge and show where I have not been cordial, charitable or respectful conversation. Quote my indiscretions, or apologize.

If you are able to quote me, I will apologize.

Patient Mary

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.

 

[GodsGrace]

Here is a challenge to you GG.

Quote me from my post(s) where I was un-civil or disrespectful.

If you don't or can't quote me, please apologize.

(I suspect no apology will be coming my way)

Your last sentence is correct.

And I don't have time for your nonsense.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hey Taken,

I give you the same challenge I gave @GodsGrace and others on here that have accused me of the same thing. As of today, no one has been able to fulfill that challenge and show where I have not been cordial, charitable or respectful conversation. Quote my indiscretions, or apologize.

If you are able to quote me, I will apologize.

Patient Mary

Apologies are beyond the scope of your capabiliteis.

Anyone on this thread knows that this is true.

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

This is EXACTLY what JESUS taught against.

But you keep doing this anyway.
You should spend some time doing pleasant things....
and STOP MISTREATING YOUR BROTHERS IN CHRIST.

 

[Truther]

Scripturally in the New Testament, can you proof otherwise, according to what you now believe and debate?

Any of the Apostles or church baptize people in the actual name of the FATHER and the Holy Spirit, apart from Jesus?

Or after Jesus the Apostles thought, the name of the FATHER is Holy, the Holy Ghost we know not, let's then baptize in the name of Jesus instead?

Or did GOD say, "Oops, sorry saints, i slept off and forgot to put it inside, and now i reveal it through Truther, listen to him." ??

My testimony is plain and simple, even scripturally, sufficient for infants and children spiritually in Christ to pick and run, and win the race.

It is obvious that Peter and the rest of the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because they understood that Jesus was telling them in the book of Matthew that the name, which is singular, of the father, son and Holy Ghost, which are titles, were all about the name of Jesus. That’s why they always and only baptized in the name of Jesus Christ….


Acts 2:38- Matt 28:19 comparison

 

[Truther]

Here, I offer the pink slip to my vehicle for anybody that can show me that anyone that was baptized in the New Testament church, any other way, but in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Lesson 6- Page 6

Show me the verse and you will get the truck.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I do not agree with many of your beliefs.

I do not agree with your false caricatures of our beliefs.

I do not consider you a friend.

I consider you a persecutor.

whah whah whah.

You are complaining because Marymog exposed your false views on celibacy, and never back off when your misconceptions are corrected.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you understood Acts 2:38, you would baptize adults in the name of Jesus Christ.

I guess you can understand it and you still disobey it. That puts you in hotter water.

Once again, Einstein – we Christians DO Baptize in the name of Jesus Christ by OBEYING His command from Matt. 28:19 -
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

You need to start obeying your Master, son . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

….anything to keep the name of Jesus out of it, huh?

Nope – just obeying the Master.

YOU should try it . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No sir.
I have nothing to get "CAUGHT" about.

What I'm indignant about is YOUR ATTITUDE and BEHAVIOR.

Which is anti-Christian, a disgrace to the Catholic Church, and an abhorrence to God in how you treat HIS CHILDREN.

Read CCC 1271 and learn to treat your fellow brothers in Christ with some respect.

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 . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wacky catholic idolator . . .

And I'm an "idolator" because . . . ??

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL is fun. I like him. He reminds me of the Archie Bunker of the RCC.
I smite him doctrinally, daily.

I’d LOVE for you to show me an example of this.

Go on – take your time . . .

 

[Truther]

Once again, Einstein – we Christians DO Baptize in the name of Jesus Christ by OBEYING His command from Matt. 28:19 -
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

You need to start obeying your Master, son . .

I hate to break the news to you. But somebody has to.
You can’t use a title instead of a name.

You can’t even do that with your checking account.
How much more water baptism.
The Roman Catholic Church is disgrace to Christianity. And you are promoting it. Where does that leave you?

 

[Truther]

Nope – just obeying the Master.

YOU should try it . . .

Refusing to baptize adults in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is obeying the master?
Sounds like you’re obeying the pope instead.
I guess the pope is your master.