Comments
1 - 20 of 21 Comments Last updated Jul 28, 2014
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#1 Jul 3, 2014
Infant Baptism was never taught by the Apostles nor can be shown in Scripture. A few places in Scripture are used by Catholics in an attempt to read infant baptism into the Bible but at closer observation, the verses they cite prove otherwise. Around 418 A.D., the Council of Carthage officially accepted this practice and enacted a condemnation for those who opposed it – thus infant baptism is not linked to Apostolic teaching but a mere invention/tradition of man.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#2 Jul 3, 2014
The first mistake the RCC makes is to assume “Children” is always a reference to ‘small kids.’ When John said,“My LITTLE CHILDREN, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin”, he was not speaking to kids here.

In no way shape or form does “Children” mean “baptize small kids who are not able to repent”. Peter declared REPENTANCE also as did John, Jesus, and others.

Also, the RCC builds infant baptism on the foundation that babies and born with sin. This too, is false. But that’s for another thread … another time.
Bobby

Mansfield, TX

#3 Jul 3, 2014
Mike said "Baptism is the new circumcision. Jesus was circumsized as a baby".

My boys were circumcised as infants. Does circumcision make our children Jews? Did circumcision ever save a Jew? In fact did the law that the circumcised Jews lived under save them?

Why do you believe that baptizing infants will save them?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#4 Jul 3, 2014
According to Genesis 17:12-13; Exodus 12:48 circumcision was only for the descendants of Abraham, and proselytes … and was performed ONLY ON MALE babies at 8 days old. On the flip side, Jesus said baptism is for all nations male and female just as repentance is for everyone. Also, per the example of baptism, it was done Infant baptism replacing circumcision is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. The RCC overlooks the obvious in favor to read into Scripture their RCC beliefs.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#5 Jul 3, 2014
JesusCreed wrote:
I Around 418 A.D., the Council of Carthage officially accepted this practice and enacted a condemnation for those who opposed it – thus infant baptism is not linked to Apostolic teaching but a mere invention/tradition of man.
All you have to do is read the Canons of the Council of Carthage in 419 your yourself. Most councils were held to officially put the teaching of the Church into Canon law after some misunderstanding on the official teaching. The Church has kept great records over the last 2000 years.

The main reason this council was called to was reaffirm the books of the Bible that earlier councils had decided on and about the heresy of Donatism. This was also to reaffirm baptism and to state that whoever doesnt believe this cannot be in the Church.

Canon 45.(Greek xlviii.)

Concerning those who are sick and cannot answer for themselves

That the sick are to be baptized who cannot answer for themselves if their [servants] shall have spoken at their own proper peril a testimony of the good will [of the sick man].

Canon 47.(Greek li.)

Concerning [the Donatists and ] the children baptized by the Donatists.

Concerning the Donatists it seemed good that we should hold counsel with our brethren and fellow priests Siricius and Simplician concerning those infants alone who are baptized by Donatists: lest what they did not do of their own will, when they should be converted to the Church of God with a salutary determination, the error of their parents might prevent their promotion to the ministry of the holy altar.

Canon 57.(Greek lxi.)

That persons baptized when children by the Donatists may be ordained clergymen in the Catholic Church

Canon 72.(Greek lxxv.)

Of the baptism of infants when there is some doubt of their being already baptized

Item, it seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the Moorish Legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such from the barbarians.

Canon 72.(Greek lxxv.)

Of the baptism of infants when there is some doubt of their being already baptized

Item, it seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the Moorish Legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such from the barbarians.

Canon 110.(Greek cxii. bis)

That infants are baptized for the remission of sins

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned, than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#6 Jul 3, 2014
Irenaeus

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age ...[so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin.... In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
Bobby

Mansfield, TX

#7 Jul 3, 2014
I think Joseph Smith knew what he was doing when he created the book of Mormon and called it a companion to the bible. It helped support his overall goal of deception.

However the catholics beat him to it. Just maybe he was thinking of the catholic book and that is where he got the idea.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#8 Jul 3, 2014
Mike, the post above from you do not prove a thing. Again, you cannot link your beliefs to Scripture. Please try that, okay.
Bobby

Mansfield, TX

#9 Jul 3, 2014
It seems like I heard somewhere that God said, I will soon send you the gospel of your salvation.. You shall find it in a pool of water, then I will send you the men who I shall authorize to water baptize you so that you may be saved.

I can't remember where I found that though:-)

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#10 Jul 3, 2014
Mike, I notice a pattern with you. When you cannot prove a teaching originated with the Apostles, you run to supposed history and man-made additions to Scripture. I know the verses used by Catholics that are twisted into infant baptism. Feel free to post them for discussion. Before you do that, did John, Jesus, the Apostles preach repentance?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#11 Jul 3, 2014
Citing supposed History isn't linking the RCC to the apostles doctrine. In fact, the post above go against the writings of Scripture. If you must use History, stick to the older writing that can be found in Scripture ... otherwise, you really are wasting your time and mine. Make your case about infant baptism from the Bible.

Why not quote others:

Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) opposed infant baptism. He argued:

“Let them come while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are being taught to what it is they are coming; let them become Christians when they are susceptible of the knowledge of Christ. What haste to procure the forgiveness of sins for the age of innocence... Let them first learn to feel their need of salvation; so it may appear that we have given to those that wanted"

However, lets find your RCC beliefs in earlier writings....THE BIBLE. I will await your references of scripture for infant baptism.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#12 Jul 3, 2014
Matthew 19:14 is used by the RCC as a proof text for ‘infant baptism.’ It reads, "Allow the little children, and don't forbid them to come to me; for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven." Well, there you have it folks, Jesus telling us to baptize infants. NOT! No mention at all about baptism here. Jesus is simply saying God has a special care for ALL children, not just believing parents and not baptized children. Nobody in the Bible ever baptized any children. Nobody was ever told to baptize children. All children are precious. The children that Jesus held in His hand and cared for were not necessarily the children of believing parents. This verse doesn’t prove infant baptism at all.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#13 Jul 3, 2014
Bobby wrote:
Mike said "Baptism is the new circumcision. Jesus was circumsized as a baby".
My boys were circumcised as infants. Does circumcision make our children Jews? Did circumcision ever save a Jew? In fact did the law that the circumcised Jews lived under save them?
Why do you believe that baptizing infants will save them?
Yes if a Rabbi did it, then you raised some Jews

Because the Apostles did.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#14 Jul 3, 2014
JesusCreed wrote:
Matthew 19:14 is used by the RCC as a proof text for ‘infant baptism.’ It reads, "Allow the little children, and don't forbid them to come to me; for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven." Well, there you have it folks, Jesus telling us to baptize infants. NOT! No mention at all about baptism here. Jesus is simply saying God has a special care for ALL children, not just believing parents and not baptized children. Nobody in the Bible ever baptized any children. Nobody was ever told to baptize children. All children are precious. The children that Jesus held in His hand and cared for were not necessarily the children of believing parents. This verse doesn’t prove infant baptism at all.
When were your children considered part of your household? The age of some sort of accountability that doesnt exist in scripture or tradition.

Whats your name. You claimed them on your tax returns. The IRS needs to know.

What did you call them? Here is Johnny, my little pagan or did you use gentile?
Never ceases to amaze me

Cedar Lake, IN

#15 Jul 3, 2014
To late mikie Elvis has left the building. Guess my itchy feet smelled up this place

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#17 Jul 3, 2014
JesusCreed wrote:
Mike, I notice a pattern with you. When you cannot prove a teaching originated with the Apostles, you run to supposed history and man-made additions to Scripture. I know the verses used by Catholics that are twisted into infant baptism. Feel free to post them for discussion. Before you do that, did John, Jesus, the Apostles preach repentance?
Sure they did. The Church forgives sins or not and they are forgiven in heaven just like Jesus said for the Church did.
Bobby

Mansfield, TX

#18 Jul 5, 2014
Jesus forgave sins; and the Scribes, students of the Law, rightly stated that only God forgives sins. If they were wrong about that, then why didn't Jesus correct them? Instead, he affirms their claim, states he has the authority to forgive sins, and then heals the paralytic. It should be clear that only God forgives sins; and Christians, as representatives of Christ, pronounce to people what has already been forgiven them by God.

So, John 20:23 is not saying that Catholic priests have the authority to forgive sins. It is saying that Christian disciples have the authority to pronounce what sins "have been forgiven."

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#19 Jul 5, 2014
Bobby wrote:
Jesus forgave sins; and the Scribes, students of the Law, rightly stated that only God forgives sins. If they were wrong about that, then why didn't Jesus correct them? Instead, he affirms their claim, states he has the authority to forgive sins, and then heals the paralytic. It should be clear that only God forgives sins; and Christians, as representatives of Christ, pronounce to people what has already been forgiven them by God.
So, John 20:23 is not saying that Catholic priests have the authority to forgive sins. It is saying that Christian disciples have the authority to pronounce what sins "have been forgiven."
You are slowly becoming a Catholic. That is exactly what the Church teaches. The priest represents Jesus, they say what is to be forgiven or not and Jesus does it. The priest then pronounce they sins are forgiven and are told to sin no more.

You now believe in purgatory, confession and that the Church created the Bible.
Mike_Peterson

Jackson, MS

#20 Jul 27, 2014
I don't remember if you protesters ever told me what you call your children since you don't consider them part of your household.

Are they pagans or Gentiles?
William

Birmingham, AL

#21 Jul 27, 2014
"The priest then pronounce they sins are forgiven and are told to sin no more."

How's that been working out for you?

You have to keep going back to confess sins despite being told to sin no more, but you can't seem to stop sinning no matter how hard you try.

Anybody over at your parish church ever manage to stop sinning completely?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is baptism essential to salvation (Nov '10) 3 hr Jimmy-Crack-Corn 243
The Origin of the Roman Catholic Church 4 hr Jimmy-Crack-Corn 147
Catholics (Feb '14) 16 hr William 853
Jesus' words only teaching, HRM (Sep '13) Thu Curious 63
Signing off ... for now Aug 26 Barnsweb 512
Where did the CoC cowards go? Aug 23 Jimmy Crack Corn 2
Debate: Ferguson - Martinsville, VA Aug 22 Barnsweb 8
•••
•••
•••

Bassett Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Bassett People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Bassett News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Bassett
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••