What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Taken]

The Bible tells us explicitly that we can LOSE our salvation by our OWN doing. (Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, Matt. 25:31–46, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:22, 1 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 10:12, 1 Tim. 4:1, 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6, Heb. 3:12-14, Heb. 6:4-6, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Pet. 2:20-21, 2 Pet. 3:17, 1 John 2:24, 1 John 5:13, Rev. 3:5, Rev. 22:19)

So?
Why are you going off on an Undisputed topic?

Of course a person can LOSE THEIR SALVATION…
You simply DO NOT KNOW HOW or UNDERSTAND WHY.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

The Biblical “guarantees” of eternal security always come with a caveat – IF you believe, IF you follow, IF you endure, etc.[/FONT]

Yep…
“IF” one “WHO” Believes, Follows, Endures…

Different from the one “WHO” “IS Convert-ED”

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Marymog]

Again.
Not interested.
I fear you can't have a civil convesation.

BTW, neither you nor @BreadOfLife have explained infant baptism BEFORE and AFTER Augustine.

Gosh. Is it that difficult?
I thought that, between the two of you, you'd know everything about the CC and its teachings.

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

 

[Marymog]

Easy.
The doctrine has to be found in the bible...
or, at least, in the ECFs.

Thangs GG.

We agree!! The writings of the ECF's can help The Church clarify doctrine!!

With that said, you must agree with the teaching of The Church on the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Sorry
Not intersted.

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.

 

[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

 

[Marymog]

You are not my friend.
You have not the consideration or power to “hurt” my feelings.
I pointed out your disrespect.
You pointed our your laughing insincere apology.



Your wanting, wondering is insignificant and waste of my time.

Ok Taken, you do not consider us friends. But I intend to follow Scripture and still consider you my friend. You are welcome to my table at anytime. Sorry I hurt your feelings to the point you felt you had to de-friend me.

It is true though. I did show disrespect towards you. It is very hard to respect a person who twists Scripture and refuses to answer legitimate questions. Are you ever going to answer my questions?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

You crack me up GG. I showed how everything you said about infant baptism is not true and this is your response.

Oh goodness......Well, I guess when one does not have the truth on their side, they can't respond.

Keeping it real with facts instead of theories.....Mary

 

[Taken]

Elijah was ALIVE physically with at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-8).

He is NOT recorded as having died – but assumed into the heavens by the power of God.
THAT belief IS Catholic Doctrine…found No where In Christ Jesus’ Gospel or Doctrine.

THE WHOLE of ManKIND…
Natural Body…..dust of earth, formed by God
….It’s LIFE….BLOOD

Heavenly Soul..Belongs to God, given to man
…It’s LIFE….GODS BREATH

Natural Spirit…Truth in mans Heart.
…It’s LIFE….MANS SEED


EACH “part” OF LIFE that applies to ONE INDIVIDUAL MAN, has been given Prophetic Offerings FROM the Lord God, According to the ORDER and WAY of God [/], TO BECOME MADE and KEPT by the Power of God…
Wholly Acceptable to BE RECEIVED unto the Lord God, ONCE and FOREVER.

It is NOT news, When a mans BODY DIES, Gods Living SOUL within that BODY, Departs out of that DEAD BODY.

It is NOT news, When GOD RETURNS a SOUL to it’s DEAD BODY, the BODY resumes LIVING.

It is recorded IN SCRIPTURE several times of DEAD body’s having RESUMED LIVING, after God returns a SOUL into a DEAD BODY.

I am quite confidant God Maintains His POWER to RETURN any LIVING soul BACK into it’s BODY….that the mans body Resumes living….
regardless of the Individuals Known Identity, regardless of mans time-table of days, months, seasons, years.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[RedFan]

Evodius was NOT the 2nf Pope, not Ignatius the 3rd. They succeeded Peter’s See in Antioch.

The Primary See was Rome, where Peter eventually presided and was martyred.

I'm aware of the Antiochene succession. But the question you haven't addressed is why should Peter's LAST appointee be the new pope? And why should it matter WHERE Peter died? These are silly arguments you are making.

And by the way, there is zero evidence that Peter "presided" over anything in Rome. For all we now, he was arrested his first day in the city.

 

[RedFan]

No – but it disproves Sola Scriptura and the fallacy that everything in written down explicitly . . .

True. And I am not a sola scriptura guy.

 

[BreadOfLife]

THE WHOLE of ManKIND…
Natural Body…..dust of earth, formed by God
….It’s LIFE….BLOOD

Heavenly Soul..Belongs to God, given to man
…It’s LIFE….GODS BREATH

Natural Spirit…Truth in mans Heart.
…It’s LIFE….MANS SEED


EACH “part” OF LIFE that applies to ONE INDIVIDUAL MAN, has been given Prophetic Offerings FROM the Lord God, According to the ORDER and WAY of God [/], TO BECOME MADE and KEPT by the Power of God…
Wholly Acceptable to BE RECEIVED unto the Lord God, ONCE and FOREVER.

It is NOT news, When a mans BODY DIES, Gods Living SOUL within that BODY, Departs out of that DEAD BODY.

It is NOT news, When GOD RETURNS a SOUL to it’s DEAD BODY, the BODY resumes LIVING.

It is recorded IN SCRIPTURE several times of DEAD body’s having RESUMED LIVING, after God returns a SOUL into a DEAD BODY.

I am quite confidant God Maintains His POWER to RETURN any LIVING soul BACK into it’s BODY….that the mans body Resumes living….
regardless of the Individuals Known Identity, regardless of mans time-table of days, months, seasons, years.

Glory to God,
Taken

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

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yep…
“IF” one “WHO” Believes, Follows, Endures…

Different from the one “WHO” “IS Convert-ED”

Glory to God,
Taken

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

“Converted” doesn’t mean you won’t RE-vert . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

So?
Why are you going off on an Undisputed topic?

Of course a person can LOSE THEIR SALVATION…
You simply DO NOT KNOW HOW or UNDERSTAND WHY.

Glory to God,
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.

 

[BreadOfLife]

True. And I am not a sola scriptura guy.

Yet you are demanding explicit Scriptural evidence for the Papacy.

Sounds very hypocritical . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'm aware of the Antiochene succession. But the question you haven't addressed is why should Peter's LAST appointee be the new pope?

Because that was the decision that Peter made.
It was HIS office to assign, having primacy over the others.

And why should it matter WHERE Peter died? These are silly arguments you are making.

It doesn't.
He could have died anywhere. He just happened to be martyred in Rome . . .

And by the way, there is zero evidence that Peter "presided" over anything in Rome. For all we now, he was arrested his first day in the city.

“ZERO” evidence??

Ahhh – there’s that incredible hypocrisy again . . .

 

[Taken]

And so is Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Eternal Security, Limited Atonement, etc.

Your Sola Scriptura “grounds” argument is a fail.

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

No 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:

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

WRONG.
I explicitly said that God can and DOES make exceptions.

You are making exceptions.
God is Revealing Prophecy.

John 3:
[13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Ok Taken, you do not consider us friends.

Correct.

I did show disrespect towards you.

I know.

Are you ever going to answer my questions?

Have no recollection of what you asked.

 

[Taken]

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

Suspicion revealed…

Thanks for openly revealing your ignorance regarding the WHOLE of “A” man and your ignorance of Gods Offering to Transform the WHOLE of “A” natural man into “A” spiritual man.

And precisely WHY conversations WITH YOU…are a WOT.