What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Taken]

No - those caveats are TO the one who is converted.

Not true.
That is YOUR long standing error.

Those Caveats APPLY to those “WITH” the Lord God….WHO SHALL Be SAVED….
“IF” they continue “WITH” the Lord God.

“Converted” doesn’t mean you won’t

RE-vert . . .

Not true.
That is YOUR long standing error.

The Conver-ed…ARE Saved…
ARE “WItH-IN” the Lord God, and He “WITH-IN” that man.

 

[RedFan]

Yet you are demanding explicit Scriptural evidence for the Papacy.

Sounds very hypocritical . . .

I don't need Scriptural evidence. I welcome ANY evidence, any reason to believe, any logic whatsoever on the seven points I identified.

 

[Taken]

In your last post, YOU stated that when a person is “saved” – they are saved forever.

Yet, a few sentences earlier, you stated the following Catholic belief:
“No one receives Salvation until a bodily DEATH occurs.”

Soooo, make up your mind.

YOUR EXPRESS DILEMMA…
IS That YOU believe, attempt and do desperately try to engage IN a SPIRITUAL Conversation, USING your sorely Limited Carnal MIND.

It is your repetitive continuous Fail…

Rom 8:
[7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

1 Cor 15:
[36] Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

Gal 2:
[20] I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

 

[Truther]

NOPE.

You’re stuck on personal names because you lack the ability to understand what “in the bane of” means.

I’ve educated you on this point repeatedly – even listing MANY scholarly sources on the matter - yet you still fail to understand . .

Let’s face it, I’m stuck on a personal name and you’re stuck on a personal title of a name. Catholics think titles are as good as a name. Do you understand, son?

 

[Truther]

There’s NO such thing as “RE-Baptism” in Christ.

YOU just got wet the second time around . . .

In Acts chapter 19, the disciples of John were rebaptized in the name of Jesus. Down goes your paper tower.

 

[Truther]

Trinitarians are the only people I’ve ever known that write their titles “son” on their checks instead of signing their name. Banks have to make special accommodations for them.
It’s a form of DEI that is taking over the world.
The gays call themselves he him her they, etc. and the Trinitarians called themselves “son” instead of using their name on checks.
Even their sons called their parents, son… Lol

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Your Sola Scriptura “grounds” argument is a fail.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that.

www.catholic.com

You attempt to argue “on the grounds”…
Scripture is NOT the ONLY “WAY” God communicates with ManKIND…

The spoken Word of God comes from the same divine wellspring as the written Word of God. It is not an add-on .But don't take my word for it. Go to any Bible search engine and key in "Word of God" and see for yourself.

duh, and not in question.

Sola Scriptura….”IS” the God inspiried, God approved means for a man to “VERIFY” what other men are Teaching, Preaching.

2 Tim 3:
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition)
knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14-15. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:

1. Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2. Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3. Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Reformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. Still taught today. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

• Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
• Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
• Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
• Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.
The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16!!!

Taken does the same thing while quoting it at the same time.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I don't need Scriptural evidence. I welcome ANY evidence, any reason to believe, any logic whatsoever on the seven points I identified.

Why establish an office (Peter, in effect, was made the prime minister of the Church by Jesus, as the exegesis of the “keys of the kingdom” establishes, with much Protestant exegetical support), only to have it cease with the death of Peter? That makes no sense. The very nature of an office is to be carried on; to have a succession. One doesn’t start a business, e.g., with a president, and then after the first president dies, the office ceases to exist and everyone is on their own. His former office is made into a lounge . . .

We’re told that “the Bible doesn’t mention Roman bishops at all.” So what? It doesn’t mention the canon or sola Scriptura at all, either. But it certainly does mention bishops and mentions distinct churches. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put two and two together.

The case for the papacy is a cumulative argument. As such, showing that the consensus today is that Peter was the Rock is one aspect of that. It isn’t the whole ball of wax. We also show what was meant by having the keys of the kingdom, etc. We support our positions one-by-one and then conclude that the evidence is strong. It is irrelevant whether the scholars cited accept the papacy or not. If anything, they are important as “witnesses” for our biblical “case” precisely because they are ultimately “hostile” witnesses, who cannot be accused of Catholic bias.

The main things, far and away, were Jesus’ own words to Peter. That’s where the whole notion originated. It didn’t come from nowhere, or “vain Romish imaginings and wishful thinking.” And that’s a pretty good place to start (with our Lord and Savior Jesus). Once one admits that Peter was the leader of the apostles, then that is perfectly consistent with our argument that this is an indication that he would be the leader of the Church Universal.
source

 

[RedFan]

Why establish an office (Peter, in effect, was made the prime minister of the Church by Jesus, as the exegesis of the “keys of the kingdom” establishes, with much Protestant exegetical support), only to have it cease with the death of Peter?

This doesn't get us very far. A "prime minister" (as you call Peter) appointed by Jesus and a successor "prime minister" appointed by Peter -- if indeed he appointed his Roman successor (how do we know that the second Bishop of Rome, be it Clement or Linus or whoever, wasn't elected by Christian leaders in Rome? or wasn't appointed by Paul?) -- cannot be viewed as equivalent authorities.

But to answer your question: Jesus expected His return within the lifetime of at least some of his apostles, and so did not give a thought to the need for a second prime minister upon Peter's death.

Apostolic succession is important. It is what roots the Church's authority. But Petrine succession as it has evolved into the Papacy is a man-made construct designed to meet the exigencies of a situation that was never contemplated initially: the possibility that bishops might disagree among themselves and need a decisionmaker to unify them.

 

[GodsGrace]

You crack me up GG.


You just can't stop evading legitimate questions which are based on your non-sensical statements, can you? My new name for you is dodgeball!!

None the less................I don't recall you bringing up "infant baptism BEFORE and AFTER Augustine" to me. But looking back thru your previous posts it appears that you believe that The Church changed its position on infant baptism AFTER Augustine influenced The Church to change it. Did I get your theory correct?

I am willing to bet that @Jude Thaddeus and/or @BreadOfLife already schooled you on this but I'm not going to look back at everyone's post to figure that out. I will take the time to correct your mistake. If you keep repeating your mistake AFTER I teach you your own Christian history, then it will be a lie instead of a mistake.

First off, infant baptism not JUST a Catholic practice. There are many Protestant denominations that adhere to Scripture and baptize ALL in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; just like Jesus said to do. If you don't want to adhere to the teachings of Jesus DON'T. That is your problem, not a Catholic Church problem. You are making this a Catholic thing when your Protestant brethren practice the same thing soooooooooo in the future, be honest and inclusive.

2nd off, there are several historical Christian documents speaking of infant baptism in between 189AD-388AD!! BTW....if you haven't figured it out yet, all those writings are BEFORE Augustine. confused

3rd off, Scripture speaks of baptizing entire FAMILIES!! You and your ilk pretend there are no infants in families. The Church and some of your Protestant brothers and sisters disagree with you. Logic disagrees with you.

4th off, your belief that infants shouldn't be baptized started with some of your revolutionaries from the Reformation. Scripture and history make it clear that Christianity has taught and practiced infant baptism since the NT era. Those are the men I follow. You follow the men of the revolution who tickled your ears by twisting Scripture AND history.

With that said, clearly The Church along with some of your Protestant brothers/sisters are adhering to Scripture. You and your ilk have chosen not to. So, if you want to continue to say that The Church changed its practice after Augustine AND continue to pretend that only the Catholic Church practices infant baptism, from this point on, now that I have schooled you, you will be a liar.

Mary

1. I brought up the question of baptism BEFORE and AFTER Augustine to both you and Bread.
Neither one has been able to reply.

2. I NEVER said infants were not always baptized. You both could stop with that lie.
I find it rather dangerous to speak to you.....I can't spend my time correcting what you THINK I said.

3. I'm not Protestant.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why establish an office (Peter, in effect, was made the prime minister of the Church by Jesus, as the exegesis of the “keys of the kingdom” establishes, with much Protestant exegetical support), only to have it cease with the death of Peter? That makes no sense. The very nature of an office is to be carried on; to have a succession. One doesn’t start a business, e.g., with a president, and then after the first president dies, the office ceases to exist and everyone is on their own. His former office is made into a lounge . . .

We’re told that “the Bible doesn’t mention Roman bishops at all.” So what? It doesn’t mention the canon or sola Scriptura at all, either. But it certainly does mention bishops and mentions distinct churches. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put two and two together.

The case for the papacy is a cumulative argument. As such, showing that the consensus today is that Peter was the Rock is one aspect of that. It isn’t the whole ball of wax. We also show what was meant by having the keys of the kingdom, etc. We support our positions one-by-one and then conclude that the evidence is strong. It is irrelevant whether the scholars cited accept the papacy or not. If anything, they are important as “witnesses” for our biblical “case” precisely because they are ultimately “hostile” witnesses, who cannot be accused of Catholic bias.

The main things, far and away, were Jesus’ own words to Peter. That’s where the whole notion originated. It didn’t come from nowhere, or “vain Romish imaginings and wishful thinking.” And that’s a pretty good place to start (with our Lord and Savior Jesus). Once one admits that Peter was the leader of the apostles, then that is perfectly consistent with our argument that this is an indication that he would be the leader of the Church Universal.
source

"Jesus was made the Prime Minister of the church...."
Really?
And where is this stated in CHURCH HISTORY?

This is why Catholics are ridiculed.
And rightly so.

 

[GodsGrace]

Lol...HOLD ON DODGEBALL!! HOLD ON

You make the statement that The Church got many things wrong....but you are not interested in talking about it???????? You are killing me dodgeball, just killing me.

Well actually Marymog....
NOT WITH YOU.

You have too much fun laughing at persons and calling them odd names.
Not my cup of tea.

I enjoy serious conversation.

 

[Marymog]

1. I brought up the question of baptism BEFORE and AFTER Augustine to both you and Bread.
Neither one has been able to reply.

2. I NEVER said infants were not always baptized. You both could stop with that lie.
I find it rather dangerous to speak to you.....I can't spend my time correcting what you THINK I said.

3. I'm not Protestant.

1. There is this cute little search box in the top right of my screen. You must not have one since it appears you don't us it. I used it to determine the validity of your allegation. What I found is that you are once again WRONG. You never brought up to me the question about infant baptism before and after Augustine until post #1,407 when you made the 1st allegation that I never explained infant baptism before or after Augustine. And, I have replied!!! Soooooo are you going to apologize OR correct the record? (probably not)

2. I agree that you never said infants were NOT baptized before Augustine. Also, part of having a conversation is when one person misinterprets the other, of which I apparently did to you, they let them know that they have been misinterpreted so everyone is on the same page and a civil conversation can be had. Here is what you said: It was a MISTAKE (another mistake) for the CC to follow the teachings of Augustine on infant baptism. His REASONS for baptizing a baby ARE WRONG.
To ME, that sentence makes it sound like you believe that The Church started allowing infant baptism because of the teachings of Augustine. The point I was making in my response to you is that infant baptism was practiced BEFORE Augustine and AFTER Augustine and, to the best of my knowledge, The Church hasn't changed its teaching on infant baptism because of Augustine. If you have evidence that The Church changed it's practice/doctrine BECAUSE OF Augustine, I would love to see your evidence.

3. So you are a baptized Catholic or Orthodox who adheres to their teachings? (I already know the answer to both those questions so, once again, you are wrong)

 

[Marymog]

And, as usual, you blather on with mind-numbingly verbose word-salads when you are shown to be wrong . . .

I read @Taken post 3 times and I still don't understand it. Word salad is a good description of it.....

 

[GodsGrace]

1. There is this cute little search box in the top right of my screen. You must not have one since it appears you don't us it. I used it to determine the validity of your allegation. What I found is that you are once again WRONG. You never brought up to me the question about infant baptism before and after Augustine until post #1,407 when you made the 1st allegation that I never explained infant baptism before or after Augustine. And, I have replied!!! Soooooo are you going to apologize OR correct the record? (probably not)

2. I agree that you never said infants were NOT baptized before Augustine. Also, part of having a conversation is when one person misinterprets the other, of which I apparently did to you, they let them know that they have been misinterpreted so everyone is on the same page and a civil conversation can be had. Here is what you said: It was a MISTAKE (another mistake) for the CC to follow the teachings of Augustine on infant baptism. His REASONS for baptizing a baby ARE WRONG.
To ME, that sentence makes it sound like you believe that The Church started allowing infant baptism because of the teachings of Augustine. The point I was making in my response to you is that infant baptism was practiced BEFORE Augustine and AFTER Augustine and, to the best of my knowledge, The Church hasn't changed its teaching on infant baptism because of Augustine. If you have evidence that The Church changed it's practice/doctrine BECAUSE OF Augustine, I would love to see your evidence.

3. So you are a baptized Catholic or Orthodox who adheres to their teachings? (I already know the answer to both those questions so, once again, you are wrong)

I'm always wrong Mary.
WHY would you care to speak to someone that is always wrong?

Read your number 3. First you ask a question...
Then you answer it yourself
AND
tell me I'm wrong.

Yes. That sounds like a REALLY civil convesation.

What I don't understand is why you've changed so much.
We used to get along fine when I was posting here some years ago.
I'm truly sorry you let Bread rub off on you like he did.
You sound like the spitting image of him....
It's very bad for the CC to be represented the way that you two do.
You sound mean and unloving.
When I go to Mass I keep hearing about how we should be loving to all
persons and how much Jesus loves us.
I think you should be demonstrating that love instead of trying to defend the
church in such an unappetizing manner.

But,,,do what you think is best.

 

[Taken]

I read @Taken post 3 times and I still don't understand it. Word salad is a good description of it.....

Rom 8:
[7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

 

[Truther]

Your Sola Scriptura “grounds” argument is a fail.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that.

www.catholic.com

The spoken Word of God comes from the same divine wellspring as the written Word of God. It is not an add-on .But don't take my word for it. Go to any Bible search engine and key in "Word of God" and see for yourself.

2 Timothy 3
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition)
knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14-15. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:

1. Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2. Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3. Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Reformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. Still taught today. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

• Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
• Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
• Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
• Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.
The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16!!!

Taken does the same thing while quoting it at the same time.

AI search engines are the word of God?

 

[BreadOfLife]

In Acts chapter 19, the disciples of John were rebaptized in the name of Jesus. Down goes your paper tower.

Pay attention, sparky –
I said there is no such thing as RE-Baptism – IN SHRIST.

They were Baptized with the Baptism of John - THEN they were Baptized in the Baptism of Christ.

Learn how to read . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Let’s face it, I’m stuck on a personal name and you’re stuck on a personal title of a name. Catholics think titles are as good as a name. Do you understand, son?

No - YOU’RE stuck on personal names because you don’t understand the idiom, “In the name of”.

It’s that simple . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't need Scriptural evidence. I welcome ANY evidence, any reason to believe, any logic whatsoever on the seven points I identified.

That’s a LIE because I’ve given you evidence and you have rejected it.