---Signing off----
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#21 Feb 3, 2014
I don't think making an altar call and saying a sinner's prayer made the final exam.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#22 Feb 4, 2014
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>Name one Catholic Church that pressured you or anybody you know to join. It takes somebody a year or longer to become of member of the Church. Do you call that pressure. We lose many converts because you protestants require nothing because you just want a butt in the pew.

I have attended Mass in Homewood, Hoover and Trussville. Why does that bother you so much. No doubt those same rich people fed the hungry and clothed the naked.

Do you have a problem with rich people? You probably wouldn't have a job except for rich people. I know I have one because of some.

A CC truly is a house of the Lord.

'One of the biggest stumbling blocks for many fundamentalists is the beautiful but opulent churches that are so commonly associated with the Catholic faith. The common refrain goes along of the lines of “look at all that money they wasted on building a church when they could have put it to use helping the poor.”

“Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said,“Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?“Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said,“Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial. For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.”(John 12:3-8 NASB)

Those who would criticize the Catholic church for its supposed vast riches and it’s use of large sums to built huge, ornate churches sound very much like the Apostle Judas, who criticized Jesus for allowing himself to be “pampered” with scented oil. Specifically, Judas lamented the fact that the oil could have been sold and given to the poor. That argument sounds oddly familiar, doesn’t it?"

http://catholicchristianity.wordpress.com/201...
Infants aren't exactly asked if they want to be "baptized". It's forced on them.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#23 Feb 4, 2014
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
Infants aren't exactly asked if they want to be "baptized". It's forced on them.
Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

Dave P

Alto, GA

#24 Feb 4, 2014
Life throws us curveballs sometimes. Things can change in a matter of days, weeks, or even minutes. I may actually have time to contribute some. Not as much as the past, not everyday. But there are a couple of things that I just cannot resist commenting on.

Barnsweb said: Your viewpoints will be missed. I've enjoyed our discussions...

Dave says that I have as well BW. If I seem harder on you than others, it is because I have always had great respect for your viewpoint and did find you very knowledgeable. Your love of OT scripture is alongside of mine.

Mike Peterson said: Join an RCIA class. Learn what the Church really teaches and the fullness of the truth. There is no pressure to join.

My reply is that this is actually a very good idea. Don't bash what you don't know, or know by second hand info or a "guidebook" that other groups use. Even former catholics haven't told me the truth about what the RCC actually teaches.

Heath said: On the run......

I can't laugh hard enough on this one. If I was on the run, it wouldn't be from your powerful Bible knowledge posted on here LOL LOL LOL. You're the least intimidating poster on here, and share the least amount of Bible knowledge or application.
Dave P

Alto, GA

#25 Feb 4, 2014
Mike_Peterson wrote:
When Jesus returned to Jerusalem with His Apostles, he witnesses scores of of rich people flaunting their blessings and making a show of giving huge gifts to the temple. He also saw a poor widow place two small copper coins, all that she had to offer, into the temple treasury. He made a point to make the apostles aware of this and said that she had put more into the treasury than all of the rich people, because she gave everything she had:
“And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said,“Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on.”(Luke 21:1-4 NASB)
The temple treasury existed for the upkeep of the temple itself; it wasn’t a poor box or place for almsgiving. It existed solely for the purpose of maintaing this opulent house of worship. And yet this Jesus, whom some would have us believe would hate the grand basilicas of the Catholic Church, commended the poor widow for giving all she had to this purpose. This flies in the face of the notion that big, beautiful churches are evil or are somehow abhorrent to God.
This gets negative reviews but it is extremely accurate. The Catholic church is not the only one "guilty" of building fabulous temples for their activities.

Since church buildings are "expedients" in COC terminology, if we are building them to serve God in and do His "work", why shouldn't we build them in a manner that glorifies our God? And if the good stewardship argument comes up, does anyone really want to go up against the catholic church on the amount of money spent on helping the sick, poor, and neglected out there? For most groups this isn't a battle you can win vs the catholics.
Dave P

Alto, GA

#26 Feb 4, 2014
Mike said- Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

Question- Mike, if one is baptized as an infant in the CC, they are to be raised in the faith. If they are, are they later baptized on the basis of their faith then? This is my major sticking point with infant baptism.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#27 Feb 4, 2014
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?
Amen to every passage.

You forgot the one that said, "and He took the baby up and poured water upon his head."

I think it's in Wishful Thinking 3:5.
Jerry Taylor

Axton, VA

#28 Feb 5, 2014
"Heath said: On the run......
I can't laugh hard enough on this one. If I was on the run, it wouldn't be from your powerful Bible knowledge posted on here LOL LOL LOL. You're the least intimidating poster on here, and share the least amount of Bible knowledge or application"

This is so true. I find it so funny that he really said that. He has these one liners often void of anything but says you are on the run as if he gave you so much knowledge of the bible that you couldnt remain here. Thats was too funny.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#29 Feb 5, 2014
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen to every passage.
You forgot the one that said, "and He took the baby up and poured water upon his head."
I think it's in Wishful Thinking 3:5.
Not at all. That is why they baptized whole households and not just households except for those under the age of accountability.

That is very good example of 'studying' the Bible and coming up with what you believe instead of believing what you are taught by the Church which is the pillar of truth. The first Christians baptized infants. If they wouldn't have, not one Jew would have converted.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#30 Feb 5, 2014
Dave P wrote:
Mike said- Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.
Question- Mike, if one is baptized as an infant in the CC, they are to be raised in the faith. If they are, are they later baptized on the basis of their faith then? This is my major sticking point with infant baptism.
At every Mass we make a profession of Faith, of what we believe. Part of that is "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" Only one baptism But we do have 7 Sacraments. Baptism is just one.

Another is Confirmation. It is so of like the Jewish Bar Mitzvar.

Confirmation, a sacrament of initiation, establishes young adults as full-fledged members of the faith. This sacrament is called Confirmation because the faith given in Baptism is now confirmed and made strong. During your Baptism, your parents and godparents make promises to renounce Satan and believe in God and the Church on your behalf. At Confirmation, you renew those same promises, this time speaking for yourself.

During Confirmation, the focus is on the Holy Spirit, who confirmed the apostles on Pentecost and gave them courage to practice their faith. Catholics believe that the same Holy Spirit confirms Catholics during the Sacrament of Confirmation and gives them the same gifts.

Traditionally, the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude (courage), knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. These gifts are supernatural graces given to the soul. The 12 fruits of the Holy Spirit are charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, long-suffering, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, and chastity — human qualities that can be activated by the Holy Spirit.

The Confirmation ceremony may take place at Mass or outside of Mass, and the presiding bishop wears red vestments to symbolize the red tongues of fire seen hovering over the heads of the apostles at Pentecost. Each person wishing to be confirmed comes forward with his or her sponsor, who may or may not be one of the godparents chosen for Baptism.

When you’re confirmed, you get to choose a Confirmation name to add to your first and middle names — or you can just use the names given to you at Baptism. However, your new name must be a Christian name such as one of the canonized saints or a hero from the Bible.

Here's what happens at the actual ritual of Confirmation:

You stand or kneel before the bishop.

Your sponsor lays one hand on your shoulder and speaks your confirmation name.

The bishop anoints you by using oil of Chrism (a consecrated oil) to make the Sign of the Cross on your forehead while saying your Confirmation name and “Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

You respond,“Amen.”

The bishop then says,“Peace be with you.”

You respond,“And with your spirit” or “And also with you.”

And you are now an adult in the eyes of the Church.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#31 Feb 11, 2014
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all. That is why they baptized whole households and not just households except for those under the age of accountability.

That is very good example of 'studying' the Bible and coming up with what you believe instead of believing what you are taught by the Church which is the pillar of truth. The first Christians baptized infants. If they wouldn't have, not one Jew would have converted.
"The first Christians baptized infants."

Prove it.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#32 Feb 11, 2014
"The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament...The most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably immersion. This is not only evident from the writings of the Fathers and the early rituals of both the Latin and Oriental Churches, but it can also be gathered from the Epistles of St. Paul, who speaks of baptism as a bath (Ephesians 5:26; Romans 6:4; Titus 3:5). In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church. The Oriental Churches have retained immersion" (Fanning, William H.W. Transcribed by Charles Sweeney, S.J. Baptism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur.+John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#33 Feb 11, 2014
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#34 Feb 11, 2014
On what basis do you require children of believers to be baptized at all? Given the silence of the New Testament, why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts?
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#35 Feb 11, 2014
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The first Christians baptized infants."
Prove it.
Whole households were baptized. It is very clear in the Bible. Did you put your infants if you had some on your tax return? Are your children part of your household?

Not baptizing infants is a fairly new phenomena. Almost all of the early Protesters took that truth with them.

When you speak of "bringing someone to Jesus," you mean leading him to faith. But Jesus says "even infants" can be "brought" to him. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism..

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#36 Feb 11, 2014
Mike Peterson wrote:
On what basis do you require children of believers to be baptized at all? Given the silence of the New Testament, why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts?
Mark 16:16 (infants can't believe)
Acts 2:38 (infants can't repent)
Colossians 2:12 (infants don't have faith)

www.roysecitycoc.org

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#37 Feb 11, 2014
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>Whole households were baptized. It is very clear in the Bible. Did you put your infants if you had some on your tax return? Are your children part of your household?

Not baptizing infants is a fairly new phenomena. Almost all of the early Protesters took that truth with them.

When you speak of "bringing someone to Jesus," you mean leading him to faith. But Jesus says "even infants" can be "brought" to him. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism..
Infants brought to Jesus were not baptized.

www.roysecitycoc.org
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#38 Feb 11, 2014
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mark 16:16 (infants can't believe)
Acts 2:38 (infants can't repent)
Colossians 2:12 (infants don't have faith)
www.roysecitycoc.org
All baptized in the bible were converts from being a Jew or Gentile

Are your kids Jews or Gentiles
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#39 Feb 11, 2014
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
Infants brought to Jesus were not baptized.
www.roysecitycoc.org
How do you know? Were you there?

First the Bible itself states that not everything important to the Christian faith is recorded in it. For example, not everything that Christ did is recorded in the inspired Books:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.[John 21:25; RSV]

According to John 20:31, some things have been recorded in the Gospel in order to come to know Christ; however, John 21:25 suggests that there is still more to know about Him. At least for St. John the Apostle, there was more that he needed to teach which was not recorded in the Bible:

I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face.[3 John 13-14]

Also St. Paul instructs Timothy on how to orally pass on the teachings of the faith:

...what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.[2 Tim. 2:2]

St. Paul even commands (2 Thess. 3:6) the Thessalonian Christians to follow the oral Traditions of the Apostles:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us (Apostles), either by word of mouth (oral) or by letter (Epistle).[2 Thess. 2:15]

These commands promoting Oral Tradition would be quite strange, if only the Bible were needed to pass on the entire Christian faith.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#40 Feb 11, 2014
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>How do you know? Were you there?

First the Bible itself states that not everything important to the Christian faith is recorded in it. For example, not everything that Christ did is recorded in the inspired Books:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.[John 21:25; RSV]

According to John 20:31, some things have been recorded in the Gospel in order to come to know Christ; however, John 21:25 suggests that there is still more to know about Him. At least for St. John the Apostle, there was more that he needed to teach which was not recorded in the Bible:

I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face.[3 John 13-14]

Also St. Paul instructs Timothy on how to orally pass on the teachings of the faith:

...what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.[2 Tim. 2:2]

St. Paul even commands (2 Thess. 3:6) the Thessalonian Christians to follow the oral Traditions of the Apostles:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us (Apostles), either by word of mouth (oral) or by letter (Epistle).[2 Thess. 2:15]

These commands promoting Oral Tradition would be quite strange, if only the Bible were needed to pass on the entire Christian faith.
Amen to those passages.

Oral tradition is what was not written down yet. And it did not contradict what was written.

You've given up trying to find the command or example of infants being baptized in the Scriptures.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
the church of Christ insider discussion boards (Aug '10) Sun BMDdl39 8
I like to get on some buttseckz.. I aint gay.. ... (Jun '16) Dec 31 Waldo Jones 2
i gotta doo doo!!! (Jul '16) Dec 25 Orphelius Pontiac 2
Church of Christ rules and principles (Apr '13) Dec 20 Credal Drone 306
THE CHILDREN of THE GOD MOST HIGH (May '14) Dec '16 randy 6
thomas jefferson edwards (Apr '16) Oct '16 NUKS67 3
Martinsville Seven - The Martinsville Curse (Mar '10) Oct '16 Santiago Ramey 10

Bassett Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bassett Mortgages