What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Augustin56]

I don’t think the ancient Catholic Church was as crazy as the one we see today. This was a gradual failure. These men in the fourth century still had some type of conviction about the holy scriptures. What you’re seeing today is completely insane. Think about it.

Here's a surprise for you. The Catholic Church teaches the same doctrines today that it did in the beginning. Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, John. The Catholic Church does not claim the right to change the teachings of Christ.

Here's a good definition for you (in modern, non-technical terms):

Heresy: That special moment when you think you have greater spiritual insight than the Apostles, disciples, Apostolic Fathers, the Church founded by Christ, and the Magiesterium, because you have a Bible that they wrote, compiled, and gave to you that you imagine you can interpret without error through your own worldview.

 

[Truther]

Here's a surprise for you. The Catholic Church teaches the same doctrines today that it did in the beginning. Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, John. The Catholic Church does not claim the right to change the teachings of Christ.

Here's a good definition for you (in modern, non-technical terms):

Heresy: That special moment when you think you have greater spiritual insight than the Apostles, disciples, Apostolic Fathers, the Church founded by Christ, and the Magiesterium, because you have a Bible that they wrote, compiled, and gave to you that you imagine you can interpret without error through your own worldview.

No way, the ancient Catholic Church of the fourth century was not loaded down with Hail Marys and our fathers and indulgences and tithing and Saint worship and Mary worship, etc. etc. etc. Things pick up pollutants as they flow down stream. They didn’t even have a pope in those early days. They only had the Trinity doctrine and infant baptism as the foundation to their downfall.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm surprised to hear you say you don't care that the Catholic Church canonized the Bible. You've got a collection of writings in that Book on your shelf which were chosen for inclusion by a Church you disrespect, with content decisions (e.g., the Letter of Barnabas is out, the Letter to the Hebrews is in) made by men who you think had their heads up their asses and didn't even know how to baptize correctly. Why doesn't that trouble you?

Good point....
About why it doesn't trouble the other member.
!!

 

[GodsGrace]

Here's a surprise for you. The Catholic Church teaches the same doctrines today that it did in the beginning. Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, John. The Catholic Church does not claim the right to change the teachings of Christ.

Here's a good definition for you (in modern, non-technical terms):

Heresy: That special moment when you think you have greater spiritual insight than the Apostles, disciples, Apostolic Fathers, the Church founded by Christ, and the Magiesterium, because you have a Bible that they wrote, compiled, and gave to you that you imagine you can interpret without error through your own worldview.

There's one dogma that was not around in the beginning. Unless you could show me, but I doubt it. The assumption...

 

[RedFan]

No way, the ancient Catholic Church of the fourth century was not loaded down with Hail Marys and our fathers and indulgences and tithing and Saint worship and Mary worship, etc. etc. etc.

Marian devotion was already a feature of the Catholic Church by the fourth century. The Sub Tuum Praesidium, and the fourteenth chapter of Methodius' Oration on Simeon and Anna, predecessors to the modern day "Hail Mary," date from early in that century.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I agree with you.
Which is why I don't define myself as Catholic.
A problem in the church is that most don't even know what it teaches and you know this is true.
I hang with traditional Catholics that are upset that the Tabernacle was moved to a side nave for reasons of quiet prayer.

I would say that this is the case in every Protestant denomination as well.
What's youre point?

As to heresy....
A catholic teaching that is new, not biblical, and not taught in the early church, to which there is no mention by the early fathers, is not heresy.

Such as?
Can you name one?

It's one of those doctrine that Protestants rail against and make the CC seem out of touch with reality. The reality espoused by the early church.

Again, I thing you're conflating disciplines and minor traditions with doctrines . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Now he's lying about Bible history. One lie after another. I suggest you stop feeding the troll, he just gets fatter.

View attachment 47398

I probably should - but exposing his idiocy is more satisfying . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hummm…
Fact is …
Non-Catholics BELIEVE
“THE” Church IS Christ’s Church;
“THE” Doctrine IS Christ Jesus’ Doctrine;
“THE” Head of Christ’s Church IS Christ Jesus.
“THE” Father IS God.
“PRAYER” IS TO the Lord God.
“WORSHIP” IS TO the Lord God.
PER Christ Jesus’ OWN Claims and Preaching…

Not only does the Catholic Churh teach these points - it introduced the WORLD to these truths.

NOT the “NON-SCRIPTURAL” Church YOU promote,
NOT the Church “FATHERS” YOU promote,
NOT the “NON-SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE” YOU promote.
NOT the “NON-SCRIPTURAL HISTORY” YOU promote.
NOT “PRAYERS” TO Dead People, YOU promote.

NOT sure why YOU think Christ’s Church is “NON-Scriptural”. There’s plenty of Scriptural evidence for the Church (Matt. 5:14, Matt. 16:18, Acts 9:4-5, Acts 20:28, 1 Tim. 3:15, Eph. 1:22-23).

With regard to the Ch8rch Fathers – if they hadn’t suffered and died for the purpose of spreading the Gospel – YOU wouldn’t even know WHO Jesus is.
Actually – I’m NOT sure that you DO anyway . . .

As for “Unscriptural” doctrine - Jesus told the future leaders of His Church:

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

That’s why Paul wrote with the SAME Authority –
Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

I don’t even know what “Unscriptural History means.
Scripture is ONE thing and History is another . . .

Finally - the only difference in asking members of the Body of Christ in Heaven to pray for us and those here on earth is that those in Heaven are PERFECT and fully-sanctified. The prayers of a RIGHTEOUS person are very powerful (James 5:16).

Those on earth are still being worked on . . .

BY YOUR definition, YOU are an Anti-Protestant, and no one cares.

NONSENSE.

9 of my 12 sublings are Protestant - and I love them deatly.
They're not obnoxious, hate-filled hypocrites like YOU . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

As long as the Catholics did not write the Bible, I’m cool with that. I don’t care if they canonized it and placed it in the order it is in. I’m just glad they didn’t touch its content. They have their own Bible that came later. That’s the perverted Catholic Bible.

I KOVE catching anti-Catholics in idiotic LIEs.

Ummmm, can you tell me the difference - and when the "Catholic" Bible came into existence?
Try not to hurt yourslf . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Let’s face it Catholic, because you absolutely refuse to say the name of the son as Jesus, you deny Jesus. You’re ashamed of his name. There’s some kind of spiritual mind block that is opposing the name of Jesus between your ears. You cannot baptize in the name of Jesus like Peter did if your life depended on it. Only God can help you and deliver you from that. I’ve actually seen people have to be delivered so that they can get baptized in Jesus name. It’s that hard.

Either you're just really stupid or a complete LIAR.
Again - I thnk it's a little of BOTH . . .

Ummm, I already told you His name is Jesus.
As for Peter - he obeyed Jesus. He wasn't disgusted in Jesus the way YOU are.

Of you get "re-Baptized" - -you're only getting WET the second time around.
Eph. 4:5
ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism

 

[GodsGrace]

I would say that this is the case in every Protestant denomination as well.
What's youre point?

Such as?
Can you name one?

Again, I thing you're conflating disciplines and minor traditions with doctrines . . .

No Bread.
I know the difference.

I believe Protestants know more about scripture than Catholics.

Can I name one?
The assumption.
Show me any ECF that spoke to this...

 

[RedFan]

No Bread.
I know the difference.

I believe Protestants know more about scripture than Catholics.

Can I name one?
The assumption.
Show me any ECF that spoke to this...

I don't know of any.

“There is no evidence of any tradition concerning Mary’s dormition and Assumption from before the 5th century. The only exception to this is Epiphanius’ unsuccessful attempt to uncover a tradition of the end of Mary’s life toward the end of the fourth century and his failure confirms the otherwise deafening silence.” -- Stephen J Shoemaker, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford University Press, 2006)

 

[Augustin56]

There's one dogma that was not around in the beginning. Unless you could show me, but I doubt it. The assumption...

The Assumption existed from early on, but was not formalized until 1950. And it is based on Apostolic Tradition (the "oral tradition" mentioned in 2 Thes. 2:15). The New Testament came from Apostolic Tradition, which preceded the New Testament, but not all of Apostolic Tradition was written into the New Testament. If one takes a sola scriptura approach to Divine Revelation, one ends up missing a lot, including that nowhere in Scripture does it support the notion of sola scriptura.

 

[Behold]

The New Testament came from Apostolic Tradition, which preceded the New Testament, but not all of Apostolic Tradition was written into the New Testament.

If something the "cult of the virgin" teaches is not found in a Bible......such as "infant baptism" or "mary flying to heaven" (Ascension)< then the Catholic is going to take the side of "our Church Father's said" as a Catholic does not believe the Bible is the Authority.

So, if a Catholic, reads a bible, any of them.....from cover to cover, and notices, that not one "infant" is baptized in a BIBLE, from Cover to Cover...... nor is "infant baptism" even mentioned, in a BIBLE..... then they will say...>>"well, that does not matter to ME, as "our church Tradition" says something different.". "that THEY taught US to believe".

And the Bible explains what you've they've done...... and what you are doing @Augustin56

A.) "Your Traditions make the word of God, of NONE EFFECT"/..... MARK 7:13
-
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

New Living Translation
And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others.”

English Standard Version
thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Berean Standard Bible
Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters.”

Berean Literal Bible
making void the word of God for your tradition, which you have handed down. And you do many things like such."

King James Bible
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

New King James Version
making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

New American Standard Bible
thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

NASB 1995
thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

NASB 1977
thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Legacy Standard Bible
thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Amplified Bible
so you nullify the [authority of the] word of God [acting as if it did not apply] because of your tradition which you have handed down [through the elders]. And you do many things such as that.”

 

[Augustin56]

No way, the ancient Catholic Church of the fourth century was not loaded down with Hail Marys and our fathers and indulgences and tithing and Saint worship and Mary worship, etc. etc. etc. Things pick up pollutants as they flow down stream. They didn’t even have a pope in those early days. They only had the Trinity doctrine and infant baptism as the foundation to their downfall.

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. 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 in the Great Schism. Protestantism didn't begin till the 16th century, and has continually splintered into literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations (and counting) ever since.

So, IF you believe that the Catholic Church somehow deviated from the original teachings of Christ, you would have to show how somehow, an angel, or Christ Himself, came back to make corrections and now, one of the literally tens of thousands of Protestant denominations suddenly has it right. Can you do that?

 

[Augustin56]

If something the "cult of the virgin" teaches is not found in a Bible......such as "infant baptism" or "mary flying to heaven" (Ascension)< then the Catholic is going to take the side of "our Church Father's said" as a Catholic does not believe the Bible is the Authority.

So, if a Catholic, reads a bible, any of them.....from cover to cover, and notices, that not one "infant" is baptized in a BIBLE, from Cover to Cover...... then they will say...>>"well, that does not matter, as "our Tradition" says something different.

And the Bible explains what you've just done.....

"Your Traditions make the word of God, of NONE EFFECT"/.....

Show me in the Bible where EVERYTHING we are to know is IN the Bible. (Sola Scriptura) You can't. It's not there.

The Bible says it isn't. See 2 Thes. 2:15 where St. Paul puts Oral Tradition (Apostolic Tradition/Holy Tradition) on an equal footing with Written Tradition (Scripture). Oral Tradition PRECEDED the New Testament. SOME of what was taught orally by the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, was written down. And some of that was selected BY THE CHURCH in the late 4th century, to be considered as the New Testament.

 

[Behold]

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ.

The Cross of Christ birthed the "Church", and that is not the "Cult of the Virgin, has begun"... as you think and teach. @Augustin56

So, while the word "catholic" is a clever "universal title" device, ... the fact is, its a "water cult" Denomination, that is man made.

Truth reveals that there is a Denomination, that is titled : "Catholic"... that is related specifically to extreme "mary devotion"... and so... in that case, we understand this about your denomination...

God is not a Catholic
Mary is not a Catholic
Jesus is Not a Catholic
The Apostles are not Catholic

 

[Behold]

Show me in the Bible where EVERYTHING we are to know is IN the Bible. (Sola Scriptura) You can't/

The Torah was in place, before your Mary Devotion Traditions showed up., and also before your "catholic denomination" or "church fathers".
So....Why would John the Baptist not understand he was to baptize infants?
Why didnt Jesus ever tell anyone to baptize Babies?
Did Jesus forget to tell them ????


Peter, stated that Paul's letters were "Scripture", and non of Paul's letters refer to ""Mary Devotion, or Mary Ascension, or infant baptism, or baptismal regeneration"...
Paul knew Peter, and never referred to him as the foundation of the Church, and in fact, Paul had to scold Peter for "Not walking uprightly according to the Truth".... Paul wrote.

So, there goes your 1st Pope.... (He was not that one), according to Paul, and Paul lived a while.

What does all that mean?
It means that your denomination has a lot of man made theology, that you feel and believe is superior to the bible.

I believe you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No Bread.
I know the difference.

I believe Protestants know more about scripture than Catholics.

Can I name one?
The assumption.
Show me any ECF that spoke to this...

The Assumption of Mary itself is not found on the pages of Scripture – but the effects of her assumption ARE.

The dogma of the Assumption posits that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was assumed body into Heaven. She did not ascend on her own, like Jesus. She was assumed into Heaven by the power of God – in the same way that Enoch (Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) were.

In the Book of Revelation, we see the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven being spoken of at the very end of Chapter 11, verse 19:
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

The very next verse is in Chapter 12 (Rev 12:1):
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman 2 clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Verse 2 says: She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

We know that this child is Jesus because in verse 4, we read:
She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.

Although this is a polyvalent prophecy, there is simply NO getting around the fact that the Woman here in Rev. 12 is Mary.
She is the ONLY being in Heaven in Revelation who us described as having a body.

As for the ECF's -
In Epiphanius’ classic Panarion (“bread box”) or Refutation of All Heresies, written about AD 350, this early Church Father affirms belief in the Assumption:
“Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death” (Panarion 79).

 

[Truther]

Marian devotion was already a feature of the Catholic Church by the fourth century. The Sub Tuum Praesidium, and the fourteenth chapter of Methodius' Oration on Simeon and Anna, predecessors to the modern day "Hail Mary," date from early in that century.

Egad!
They were sinking fast