What is the purpose of infant baptism?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Oh if you're Catholic then we can end this conversation since we both agree that you guys started this problem with the water.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Hydrophobia (fear of water) is a symptom of rabies. In this case, it's spiritual rabies.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Listen Roman Catholic, the name of the son is not son. I don’t know where you guys get that idea. You got that, son?
Nothing, nothing at all. He’s perfectly sane, sober and has all of his mental acuity. Wonderful guy.
I know nothing I see nothing I hear nothing
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Point taken -- but a mild dissent on the date. The Didache, according to most scholars, was written in late First Century or possibly early Second Century. Consensus on the range is 70 - 110 AD. We just don't know how many of the Apostles were still alive at the time it was written.
Sorry to say this, am not at all moved with your theology about your denomination.
I agree with @RedFan on the dating which would put it in the hands of the Catholics and not in the hands of the Apostles.
Dear Truther, beware of these who go back and forth and get nowhere, tire and wear you down. And probably make you miss your steps.
These people are not ashamed, who add to or subtract from, the written ancient scripture, just to suite their denominational agenda and traditions. And when they debate about them diligently, apparently this shows further they have made the commandment of GOD of none effect by their tradition.
The New Testament have no mention of 'infant baptism', but rather later added views and laws of men. Furthermore, depending on the denomination, where from one another divided in views and opinions, which eventually became one's tradition.
Even the verse they quote to justify, there Jesus only touched and blessed infants and children. Who were brought to Him. hence saying, "............... as such is the Kingdom of GOD." On the other hand in the following verse, He used these infants and children as an example of their innocence and purity. Especially addressing to the adults there in discipleship,, that they should become like these to receive the Kingdom of GOD and enter.
Since we're also facing adults like them here, going back and forth and end nowhere in any tread. Apparently, are with ones who've not received nor entered the Kingdom like infants and children, but as adults. Therefore, these did not come through the gate into the sheep pen, but rather like robbers and thieves who climbed over the fence in.
Shalom in the name of Jesus Christ
Last edited:
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
We know John wrote Revelation around 95 A.D, unless you assert he was dead when he wrote it. Consensus on the range is 70 - 110 AD is good enough for me but never be good enough for Lavrovites with deep seated authority issues. The 7 authentic Ignatian letters dispel the many myths of the early church. Calvin rejected them as forgeries. More on the next post.
Last edited:
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
I. The Three Collections of Ignatius’ Letters
There were false letters claiming to be from St. Ignatius of Antioch (you can read them here, if you would like, but again: they’re spurious). These forgeries are themselves ancient, so Catholics and Orthodox for centuries believed that Ignatius of Antioch had written 13 letters. Protestants, including Calvin, often rejected all 13, since they seemed too Catholic. Today, nearly everyone agrees that there are 7 letters (called the “Middle Recension”) which were altered in the late fourth century (creating what’s called the “Long Recension,” a blend of real and pseudo-Ignatius). So here’s the threefold distinction:
In other words, the fact that the Middle Recension is authentic should give Protestants serious pause, since it disproves many Protestant theories about the nature of the early Church.
source
Peterlag says:
There were false letters claiming to be from St. Ignatius of Antioch (you can read them here, if you would like, but again: they’re spurious). These forgeries are themselves ancient, so Catholics and Orthodox for centuries believed that Ignatius of Antioch had written 13 letters. Protestants, including Calvin, often rejected all 13, since they seemed too Catholic. Today, nearly everyone agrees that there are 7 letters (called the “Middle Recension”) which were altered in the late fourth century (creating what’s called the “Long Recension,” a blend of real and pseudo-Ignatius). So here’s the threefold distinction:
- Long Recension – These were the 13 letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch. Copies of this Long Recension are found in both Greek and Latin. It includes both altered versions of Ignatius’ actual letters and entirely-spurious letters.
- Middle Recension – These are the seven Ignatian letters now recognized, nearly-universally, as authentic.
- Short Recension – There are Syriac collections with very abbreviated versions of Ignatius’ letters. These were likely just translations / summaries into Syriac. (You don’t need to know about this, but I just include it for the sake of thoroughness).
The Anglican J.B. Lightfoot, no great fan of Catholics (whom he terms “Romanists”) nevertheless concedes that “throughout the thirteen letters the same doctrines are maintained, the same heresies assailed, and the same theological terms employed. In this respect no difference can be traced between the two sets of epistles.” So while there may have been theological reasons (responding to the Apollinarian or Arian heresies) for the forgery of the additional 6 letters, nothing theological (between Catholics and Protestants) turns on these spurious letters. Anything that Protestants would object to in the six false letters is also found in the seven genuine letters.
In other words, the fact that the Middle Recension is authentic should give Protestants serious pause, since it disproves many Protestant theories about the nature of the early Church.
source
Peterlag says:
Last edited:
i respect your patients in showing and explaining historical facts, but many of them can be twisted and fabricated for dominion over the people. Just like the every sect out there who have their saints and writings too for dominion over their people.
This even happened with HIS own people the Jews, where elder rabbis based on sects, wrote letters that became books besides the Torah. There were appointed human kings, leaders, teachers, lawyers and prophets over HIS people, emphasis based on the Law and the Prophet's saying is the deciding factor overall.
But what happened in the book of Ezekiel, when the Law and the Prophets were already given, and appointments in leadership have been made accordingly over the people and now close to 400 years?
Due to HIS disgust towards these hired shepherd over HIS people all these years HE had put up with. Finally, GOD predicted HIMSELF one day will personally shepherd HIS own lambs and sheep rather. Then Emmanuel stepped into the scene, and from Matthew chapter 5 onward, GOD shepherd His owned once again lambs and sheep. From then on, only the chosen 13 were authorized and sent to make disciples of all nation, kindred and tongue, and etc.
Until today we are disciple and built on the foundation of these Apostles and Prophets, included in the Old and New Testament of the Holy Bible. They are the GOD HIMSELF inspired and breathed out canonized All Scripture = Holy Bible. In them that are documented as saints, are the true saints of Christ, and none other, even st Ignatius who is not mentioned.
The church of Antioch and the very first church to be declared as Christian from the people of 'The Way', is written. And by wisdom noted eventually elders are appointed as Bishops or Overseers of Christ through the Apostles' established churches. But apparently their names are not clearly mentioned nor are written. Nor their letters be any focal point to ponder or to reckon with.
The focal point is the Good Shepherd who appointed Apostle Peter to feed His lambs and sheep, and tend to His sheep. So, we hear only the Good Shepherd's voice of the New Testament and follow Him only. On the other hand, when we hear the stranger's voice out of the context representation, we make a run for it, besides we defend it at first.
Last edited:
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Or history?
If one was Christian for the first 1000 years of Christianity, one was Catholic. That's all there was. Then, in 1054 A.D., the Orthodox splintered off, but retained Apostolic Succession.
Protestantism didn't arise until the 16th century and was started by rogue Catholics. Every one of the Protestant Reformers were Catholic. That means one has to ask the question, was Christianity wrong for 16 centuries until Protestantism arose, and came to "correct" the teachings? And if so, which of the tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations has it right? Or do you claim no one does and Christ reallyl did a poor job of spreading His message?
We claim that Christ founded a (one!) Church, which has existed the entire time. It alone has the fullness of Christ's truths, which it does not claim the right to change. Christ founded a Church to spread His truths. He didn't write a book. The Church He founded wrote the New Testament, but didn't set the canon for the New Testament until the late 4th century. The vast, vast majority of people were illiterate anyway, until the last 100 years, give or take, in man's history. St. Paul refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15.
Similar threads
