What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Dan Clarkston]

What if I told you the catholic church that you dispise teaches the same thing

Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while ya know.

 

[Taken]

So you think baptism in the name of Jesus is the fulfillment of the command of Matt 28:19, correct?

I believe, regardless of the era in time…
Individuals who are “ON” the Lords Path…
ARE ALL at different “DISTANCES”…

Learning…is one thing.
Believing…what one learns…is another thing..
Understanding…what one believes…
IS…More COMPLEX…

Some believe….by the LIMIT of their MIND.
Some believe….by the EXTENT of their SPIRIT.

Example…
LIMIT of the MIND…Follow the EXACT “KNOWLEDGE” with the MINDS limited understanding.

EXTENT of the SPIRIT…Follow the UNDERSTANDING of the SPIRIT.

Point…
Baptize…IN the “NAME” of:
“The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit”…

**
Men…DID and DO “WATER” Baptize men“ according to THAT PHRASE”… NOT Literal NAMES of;
The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit.

**
Men...DID (and a FEW) DO “WATER” Baptize men”…IN THE NAME God Himself Declared IS The NAME “ABOVE” ALL other NAMES…
“JESUS”…

Any man Having “SPIRITUAL UNDERSTANDING”…understands…
Jesus “IS” God the Father, IN the Flesh.
Jesus “IS” the Son, IN the Flesh.
Jesus “IS” the Christ, WHO IS the Power of God, WHO IS the Christ.

Men Baptizing other men…
Is simply ONE man, performing A public Demonstration according to a WILLING Declaration of the BAPTIZEE…

And it IS “ONE” WHO IS SPIRITUALLY DOING, (without a mans literal eyesight) the SPIRITUAL BAPTISM…and
THAT “WHO” IS JESUS, who Himself long Scriptural list of “WHO” he claimed TO BE.


So, no, I would have no issue for a man to baptize IN the NAME…
Of the “the Farther, Son, Holy Spirit”…
Or
In the NAME of “JESUS”.

God Bless You.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Marymog]

Well which is it?
Did the church NEVER SAY that priestly celibacy is a written fact in scripture....
OR
Did it,,,,judging from your verses regarding this?

The church DID NOT require celibacy due to biblical reason
OR
It should have been required FROM THE BEGINNIING...

SINCE

The CC was the first church and set the doctrine forever.

STOP LYING MARYMOG.
You make no sense.
Thanks.

Hey GG,

First off priestly celibacy is not a doctrine, it is a discipline and I told you that in my post. If you want to have an educated, honest discussion with me you should learn what you are talking about before talking about it and read what I wrote.

2nd off I made it very clear that "the NT never comes right out and says, Priests can't be married" AND "The Church has never said that priestly celibacy is a written fact in Scripture; it is a discipline enforced by The Church."

It appears as if you are stuck on the theory that celibacy should have been required by The Church from the beginning if it is written in Scripture that all priest should be celibate. But I have already debunked your theory. Sooooo where does the lying come in GG? Where did I lie?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

I would put it differently. Scripture neither commands nor forbids a celibate priesthood. So the Church's teaching on the subject is consistent with but not backed up by Scripture -- Paul's preference for celibacy notwithstanding.

Well put RedFan. Thank you. I hadn't thought of it that way. Maybe your statement will help @GodsGrace to understand why The Church has a celibacy discipline for its priests.

Mary

 

[Truther]

Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while ya know.

Hahaha

 

[Truther]

I believe, regardless of the era in time…
Individuals who are “ON” the Lords Path…
ARE ALL at different “DISTANCES”…

Learning…is one thing.
Believing…what one learns…is another thing..
Understanding…what one believes…
IS…More COMPLEX…

Some believe….by the LIMIT of their MIND.
Some believe….by the EXTENT of their SPIRIT.

Example…
LIMIT of the MIND…Follow the EXACT “KNOWLEDGE” with the MINDS limited understanding.

EXTENT of the SPIRIT…Follow the UNDERSTANDING of the SPIRIT.

Point…
Baptize…IN the “NAME” of:
“The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit”…

**
Men…DID and DO “WATER” Baptize men“ according to THAT PHRASE”… NOT Literal NAMES of;
The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit.

**
Men...DID (and a FEW) DO “WATER” Baptize men”…IN THE NAME God Himself Declared IS The NAME “ABOVE” ALL other NAMES…
“JESUS”…

Any man Having “SPIRITUAL UNDERSTANDING”…understands…
Jesus “IS” God the Father, IN the Flesh.
Jesus “IS” the Son, IN the Flesh.
Jesus “IS” the Christ, WHO IS the Power of God, WHO IS the Christ.

Men Baptizing other men…
Is simply ONE man, performing A public Demonstration according to a WILLING Declaration of the BAPTIZEE…

And it IS “ONE” WHO IS SPIRITUALLY DOING, (without a mans literal eyesight) the SPIRITUAL BAPTISM…and
THAT “WHO” IS JESUS, who Himself long Scriptural list of “WHO” he claimed TO BE.


So, no, I would have no issue for a man to baptize IN the NAME…
Of the “the Farther, Son, Holy Spirit”…
Or
In the NAME of “JESUS”.

God Bless You.

Glory to God,
Taken

But those that baptize in the titles are not saying the name of Jesus. Shouldn’t it be the name of Jesus that causes remission of sins while in the water? Or is it just the water and the titles that remit sins?

Acts 2:38… be baptized In the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Purposes of paedobaptism:

1. As a parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament, Luke 2:21.
2. Initiate the baby into the Christian community because his parent is a Christian, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 7:14.

I baptized all my 5 kids by near submersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when they were 8 days old. I understand that the evidence for infant baptism in the Bible is not explicit and is debatable. So, when my kids were teenagers, I told them that if they believed that was sufficient, there would be no need to be baptized again; but if not, feel free to have an official adult believer's baptism from a reputable local church.

Well I'm really late to the discussion so much a few weeks back thought about doing my own thread on the topic from my own point of view.

Anyway, I would say your above post is correct on infant baptism, but as a infant Baptism person myself I would also add
1) Biblical verses on Faith, where the Faith of a child is used by Jesus to show that our faith is not a matter of mental understanding but trust.

2) The entire nature of covenant in the Old Testament is part of it as well. Paul in Hebrews and Romans uses the Old Covenant to highlight many new covenant truths. One of them is the fact that the life of faith starts when we were young. In ancient Israel you did not come of age then have your parents ask you "Hey Son or daughter do you want to be Jewish or would you want to join the Philistines, or the Canaanite's?" Nope it was pretty much like that verse from the book of Provers "Train a child in the way he should go and he will not depart from it".

3) On this discussion, on a different message board another Pedobaptist made a great point that I will repeat here.

"The only reason that instances are recorded in the New Testament of followers of Christ speaking to adult converts about being baptized is because, when the whole world is to be evangelized, OF COURSE they would go first to adults! Wouldn't you? You wouldn't expect them to cruise schoolyards trying to convince children, would you???? But when it says that "whole households" were baptized, as the NT says, it means children, too.

In fact, it is ludicrous to assume (which advocates of "believers baptism" often do) either that 1) there were no children in the households of people of that place and time OR that 2) the parents would join a new religion and insist that their own children be excluded from it."


4) Church history has a lot to say about this topic as well. People in ancient times did not have reticence toward infant baptism that people have today. Some folks did put off their baptism way late in life, attempting to use baptism almost like the Catholic "last rites" because there was anxiety how sin would dealt with post baptism in the life of believer (through confession) but is a whole different mentality. As much as the early Church is criticized for "not being Biblical" I don't think many Protestants realize that the way they read the Bible is greatly affected by their own cultural baggage coming from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (which is very different than that of Biblical times).

 

[Marymog]

But those that baptize in the titles are not saying the name of Jesus. Shouldn’t it be the name of Jesus that causes remission of sins while in the water? Or is it just the water and the titles that remit sins?

Acts 2:38… be baptized In the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Hey Truther,

Scripture says baptize all in the name of the Father, SON and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). WHO is the SON in that passage?

You may have already addressed this in a previous post but there is soooo much back and forth on this subject I may have missed it.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Men Baptizing other men…
Is simply ONE man, performing A public Demonstration according to a WILLING Declaration of the BAPTIZEE…

There is not a single line in Scripture that says baptism is a or is required to be a "public Demonstration" for it to be valid.

 

[Marymog]

….yes, by commanding them all to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins.

Get that, son?

All are "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" when they are baptized with water and the baptizer says, I baptize you in the name of the Father (God/Yahweh), Son, (Jesus, Christ, Lord) and Holy Spirit (aka helper, Holy Ghost).

 

[Marymog]

Just like a Catholic spin room.

Fact is, the name of the Father, son and Holy Ghost is Jesus.

That is exactly why everyone that was ever baptized in the NT church was always and only baptized in the name of Jesus.

Hello Truther,

Have you ever read the Didache? Do you know what it is? When it was written? Here is a quote from it: And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

So, now that you know the FACTS, are you going to rescind your false statement that everyone that was ever baptized in the NT church was always and only baptized in the name of Jesus? (I already know that you won't, but I thought I would ask)

 

[Taken]

But those that baptize in the titles are not saying the name of Jesus. Shouldn’t it be the name of Jesus that causes remission of sins while in the water? Or is it just the water and the titles that remit sins?

Acts 2:38… be baptized In the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Water baptism, (called “John the Baptists baptism” )…IS “FOR” the eyes of the human men witnesses Watching the ritual.

(It is ancient historical knowledge human men are naturally “see to believe” creatures.)

The “baptism” that matters…IS via the Lord God Almighty…which “IS” accomplished without the SEEING observance of human men.

Lord…God…Almighty…IS the:
Son…Father…Power…

The Father AND Son are ONE (Jon 10:30)
The Power of God….IS Christ. (I Cor 1:24)
The Power of God….is Gods Glory (which He gives to no one). (Isa 4:28)
Human men ARE “OFFERED” the reflection of Gods Glory.
Human men ARE “OFFERED” Gods POWER to Dwell WTHIN a man.

IN the Name OF, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit….ALL falls UNDER the NAME above ALL Names……JESUS.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

There is not a single line in Scripture that says baptism is a or is required to be a "public Demonstration" for it to be valid.

Does a priest baptize himself?
Does an infant arrange his own water baptism?
Is a parent or guardian present at an infants water baptism?
The parents, the guardians, the infant ARE the public!
So also is a congregation who observes a water baptism…

You should KNOW any attendees ARE the public WITNESSES to a performed Ritual.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I’m kind of tired today. Please watch the video. The scriptures are embedded in the second page of the video. Thanks for the four minutes of your time.

Well, I broke my rule about not watching videos that are used as a substitute for an actual response – only to find that the guy narrating the video is as clueless as YOU are about the idiom, “Un the name of”.

Acts 10:38
How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Three Persons
ONE Being.

The Father’s name is not “Jesus Christ”.
The Holy Spirit’s name is not “Jesus Christ”.
The Son – the Messiah is Jesus Christ.

This is what happens when people like YOU and your cult “rethink” the Scriptures and pervert the Word of God . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am not a modalist. People that teach that you must obey Peter per Acts 2:38 do not all have to necessarily be a modalist.

If you think that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ALL named. "Jesus" - then you ARE a Modalist . . ..

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hey Truther,

Scripture says baptize all in the name of the Father, SON and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). WHO is the SON in that passage?

You may have already addressed this in a previous post but there is soooo much back and forth on this subject I may have missed it.

Mary

Thus guy is a Modalist, so he believes that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ALL named "Jesus" - and NO amount of Scriptural evidence will change his mind.

He is stuck in the mire of heresy . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

Hey GG,

First off priestly celibacy is not a doctrine, it is a discipline and I told you that in my post. If you want to have an educated, honest discussion with me you should learn what you are talking about before talking about it and read what I wrote.

2nd off I made it very clear that "the NT never comes right out and says, Priests can't be married" AND "The Church has never said that priestly celibacy is a written fact in Scripture; it is a discipline enforced by The Church."

It appears as if you are stuck on the theory that celibacy should have been required by The Church from the beginning if it is written in Scripture that all priest should be celibate. But I have already debunked your theory. Sooooo where does the lying come in GG? Where did I lie?

Curious Mary

Do you really think I care what you think?

 

[GodsGrace]

Lol GG.....Yes, please let us set the record straight with facts.

In post #754 you said, "It's wrong to ask that priests not marry. There is no mention of this in the NT...."

Let's set your broken record straight: The record shows that the men who choose to serve God and his sheep are NOT asked to marry. They CHOOSE not to marry! Soooo you are wrong about that.

The record shows that even though the NT never comes right out and says "Priests can't be married" it does say The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; he who refrains from marriage will do better” The Catholic Church agrees with that statement and opens the door to men AND women who CHOOSE not to marry and serve the Lord.

Jesus said, some have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it. The Church agrees with Jesus. YOU and your protestant minions have a problem with men who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God and CHOOSING to be a priest.

It is true that The Church allowed married men to be priests until the 11th century when Pope Gregory VII issued a decree requiring all priests to be celibate. The Church has never said that priestly celibacy is a written fact in Scripture; it is a discipline enforced by The Church. Jesus was celibate and priest are to be like Jesus AND read above quotes from Scripture for further reasoning of this discipline.

So now, as you can see, Scripture does back up what The Church teaches.

Thank you for your opinions on this matter though............I will stick with Scripture.

BTW
It's not the Church
It's the church.

Learn the difference.

 

[Truther]

Hey Truther,

Scripture says baptize all in the name of the Father, SON and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). WHO is the SON in that passage?

You may have already addressed this in a previous post but there is soooo much back and forth on this subject I may have missed it.

Mary

The son per Matt 28:19 is Jesus.

The name of the son per Matt 28:19 is Jesus.

The command is to baptize in the name of the son, which is Jesus, correct?

 

[Truther]

All are "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" when they are baptized with water and the baptizer says, I baptize you in the name of the Father (God/Yahweh), Son, (Jesus, Christ, Lord) and Holy Spirit (aka helper, Holy Ghost).

You must say “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ “.

That is, if you’re not a gambler.