What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Bob Estey]

Welcome to : Catholicism

I believe there are Protestants who think you need to be baptized to go to heaven.

 

[Behold]

I believe there are Protestants who think you need to be baptized to go to heaven.

Catholics existed as "the cult of Mary" about 1100 + yrs obo...... before "Protestants" came into existence in the mid 1500's obo.

So, the idea of "baptismal regeneration",

"Born again BY.....water"...

was a Catholic teaching, originally, and it has filtered down into many protestant denominations...

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I believe there are Protestants who think you need to be baptized to go to heaven.

That's true, that would be most Protestants, but Behold is an anti-Protestant. Everybody is wrong except him

 

[Behold]

That's true, but Behold is an anti-Protestant. Everybody is wrong except him

The Douay Rheims (Catholic bible) is the bible that teaches

"Born again ... BY water"...

So, that is baptismal regeneration, that is the Catholic Teaching.


Now, here is the thing..
If people want to have their babies baptized in water, then good.... or whatever...
But, once a cult teaches that this is "saving them" or "causing them to become a "Christian", then that lie is up and running.

How do you know its a lie to teach that babies can be Saved?, by water or at all?

Its because God saves us, through Christ..... and He requires that a person TRUSTS in CHRIST.

You have to give God you FAITH in Christ..

So, a baby, can't even think yet... so, they can't TRUST in Christ or Trust in anything, therefore they can't be born again.
And obviously the parents can't "trust in Christ" for the baby...= (face-palm).

But that's not an issue, as Babies are not under the Law, and are not counted yet, as a sinner, so, if they die, they are heaven bound, every single one... including the ABORTED.

 

[Truther]

What is the name of the son? Jesus. What is the name of the son per Matt. 28:19? Sorry, Matt. 28:19 doesn't tell us, as it contains no proper names. But since everyone knows the son's name is Jesus, this is immaterial, and use of the Matthean formula is not at odds with Acts 2:38. That's the point I have been trying to make.

So, the name of the son per Matt 28:19 is unknown?

 

[Truther]

What did Jesus say to fo in Matt. 28:19?
ONE more time, Eintein . . .

According to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange:
Putting all religious contentions aside for the sake of our language, the etymology of name offers a good place to start understanding: Old English nama, noma "name, REPUTATION," from Proto-Germanic *namon

(cognates: Old Saxon namo, Old Frisian nama, Old High German namo, German Name, Middle Dutch name, Dutch naam, Old Norse nafn, Gothic namo "name"), from PIE *nomn- (cognates: Sanskrit nama; Avestan nama; Greek onoma, onyma; Latin nomen; Old Church Slavonic ime, genitive imene; Russian imya; Old Irish ainm; Old Welsh anu "name").

We've all experienced the power of namedropping in our lives. People respect us and our opinions if they believe we are connected to someone with GREATER REPUTATION AND AUTHORITY.

In all cultures, people of authority have always lent their REPUTATION and their AUTHORITY to their delegates. The founders and leaders of religious movements use the same delegation strategies as the founders and leaders of nations. The English phrase in the name of simply asserts the REPUTATION and AUTHORITY of another person.

English Reports Annotated - Pages 1505-2672, 1505, page 2048:
...an action on a board given to trustees of an industrial society before the act may, after registration under the act, be brought in the name of the newly -incorporated body.

“In the name of” meaning:
Macmillan Dictionary
1. representing someone or something
2. using the authority given by someone or something

Collins Dictionary
1. in appeal or reference to
2. by the authority of; as the representative of

Idioms.TheReferenceDictionary.com
1. Based on the AUTHORITY of someone or something. We proclaim these things in the name of God. In the name of King John, I command you to halt.
2. With someone or something as a basis, reason, or motivation.

Thesaurus.com
- through - at the hand of
- supported by - through the agency of
- via - with
- through the medium of
- under the aegis of
- with the assistance of

Acts 2:38 = by the AUTHORITY of Jesus Christ.

As I have previously said...

The forums melt down when asked what the name of the son is per Matt 28:19.

This answer was a typical example of a meltdown.

Factinatingly terrifying.

 

[Truther]

Why are you being so mean, @BOL? Sarcastically calling @Truther "Einstein" -- and suggesting he is a liar -- reveals more about you than about him. Please stop. I agree with you that he is mistaken in his analysis of the interplay between Acts 2:38 and Matt. 28:19. But we have all been mistaken about things in our lives. And I suspect he probably meant to say something a little different - in which case, his "mistake" is being inarticulate. Why demean him over it?

I like BOL.

He is cool, but silly.

A person has to understand his gruff demeanor to understand Catholic priests.

 

[Truther]

Wrong. A valid baptism requires the liturgical formula in Matthew 28.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

These words have always been the practice of Christians everywhere at all times, by Orthodox, Catholics and most Protestants. That partly explains why most non-Catholic baptisms are valid in the eyes of the CC. Using the correct formula given by Jesus Himself is a valid baptism. That has not changed for 2000 years in most of Christianity.

Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Here, Peter is not being disobedient to the Commission in Mathew 28:19 because he is not baptizing anyone when he said this. He is simply saying you need baptism. He didn't need to articulate the instructions given in Matthew 28:19 because Peter and the Apostles knew the correct liturgical formula for baptism. Using Acts 2:38 to "disprove" a valid baptism is an abuse of Scripture.

One must read the Epistles in the light of the Gospels, not the other way around.

What is the name of the son per the highlighted?

 

[Truther]

I believe there are Protestants who think you need to be baptized to go to heaven.

Anyone that disobeys Acts 2:38 is protesting Peter etc.

This includes the RCC, SDA, LDS, JWs, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, AGs, non denoms, etc etc etc....

The RCC is the mother of all Acts 2:38 protestors, thus the queen of protestants, lording over her various offspring.

The RCC is the original protest-ant.

The rest are her daughters.

 

[RedFan]

So, the name of the son per Matt 28:19 is unknown?

Unknown? Heck no, of course it's known! Even though Matt. 28:19 is silent on it. And that's the problem you are having with your use of "per" here. The son's name is not known to be Jesus through that verse.

 

[Truther]

Unknown? Heck no, of course it's known! Even though Matt. 28:19 is silent on it. And that's the problem you are having with your use of "per" here. The son's name is not known to be Jesus through that verse.

What is the name of the son per Matthew 28:19, That is if the sons name is not known per that verse?

 

[RedFan]

What is the name of the son per Matthew 28:19, That is if the sons name is not known per that verse?

We are plowing over the same ground. The son is not given a name in Matt. 28:19. I'm sure you've read the verse a hundred times. The word "Jesus" is not in it. Why do you keep asking this? (Is it because the definition of "per" escapes you?)

 

[Truther]

We are plowing over the same ground. The son is not given a name in Matt. 28:19. I'm sure you've read the verse a hundred times. The word "Jesus" is not in it. Why do you keep asking this? (Is it because the definition of "per" escapes you?)

Okay, you don’t know the name of the son per Matt 28:19. I get it.

Do you think Peter, who was there at Matt 28, may have figured it out when he commanded folks to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?

Or, should Peter have took your position and tell them to be baptized in the name of the son instead of Jesus Christ?

 

[Truther]

As I have previously said...
The forums melt down when asked what the name of the son is per Matt 28:19.
This answer was a typical example of a meltdown.
Factinatingly terrifying.

I reiterate.

 

[Bob Estey]

Catholics existed as "the cult of Mary" about 1100 + yrs obo...... before "Protestants" came into existence in the mid 1500's obo.

So, the idea of "baptismal regeneration",

"Born again BY.....water"...

was a Catholic teaching, originally, and it has filtered down into many protestant denominations...

I think Protestants were an offshoot of the Catholics. They would have carried with them the Catholic beliefs, save for the ones they disagreed with.

 

[Bob Estey]

That's true, that would be most Protestants, but Behold is an anti-Protestant. Everybody is wrong except him

He seems to be anti-Catholic also.

 

[Truther]

I think Protestants were an offshoot of the Catholics. They would have carried with them the Catholic beliefs, save for the ones they disagreed with.

Excellent post.

 

[Bob Estey]

Anyone that disobeys Acts 2:38 is protesting Peter etc.

This includes the RCC, SDA, LDS, JWs, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, AGs, non denoms, etc etc etc....

The RCC is the mother of all Acts 2:38 protestors, thus the queen of protestants, lording over her various offspring.

The RCC is the original protest-ant.

The rest are her daughters.

Acts 2:38 says you will receive the Holy Spirit if you repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and I don't think we'll get very far if we don't repent. The verse doesn't actually say you won't receive the Holy Spirit if you aren't baptized.

 

[Bob Estey]

Excellent post.

Thank you.

 

[Behold]

I think Protestants were an offshoot of the Catholics.

Im a protestant, and im not an "offshoot" of the "cult of the virgin".
Are you?

So, this word....>"protestant"...

Its "Pro-test-ant... "to PROTEST">.. To protest against the Dark Ages "Cult of the Virgin"., at about '1550, until FOREVER.

Its a Devoted Spiritual Separation as a group of Born again Believers, AGAINST the Catholic Church.

And later its a protest against all other cults......that came out.........Like JWs or Mormons, or similar.