What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[BreadOfLife]

Let Professor Truther teach you an English lesson. Re per our discussion means to redo. Baptism that was not in the name of Jesus Christ needs to be redone.
Paul did this to the 12 in Acts chapter 19. All Catholics are not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
You and your Catholic constituents need to be rebaptized because whatever you called baptism when you were a baby does not count.
Your baptism is worse than John’s baptism.

Funny – your response had NOTHING to do with an “English lesson”.
As usual, it was just another case of heterodox flatulence.

Sorry for the big words . . .

 

[RedFan]

I gave you Scriptural evidence for Apostolic Succession (Acts 1:20).
YOUR response is that Peter was “mistaken”.

In post#1438 – I have you a 14-point litany of Scripture verses and Biblical evidence for Peter’s Primacy over the Apostles and the Church.
YOU replied, “What doe this have to do with the Papacy?”

You’re just another dishonest anti-Catholic living in hopeless denial . . .

I don't challenge the validity of apostolic succession -- in fact, I think it is a mainstay of the Church (see my post #1489). But that is far different from the primacy of the Roman bishop as "Pope."

 

[BreadOfLife]

So you think it could’ve also been worded like this… Then Peter said to them repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the son…?
Jesus name could’ve easily been omitted to satisfy the Roman Catholic Church of the future?

No - Peter said it correctly.
The problem is with YOUR failure to understand what he meant.

"In the name of", "As per" Jesus Christ0

It ain't rocket science, son . . .. . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't challenge the validity of apostolic succession -- in fact, I think it is a mainstay of the Church (see my post #1489). But that is far different from the primacy of the Roman bishop as "Pope."

You're being dishonest - AGAIN.

I said that I proved his Primacy over the Apostles AND the Church.
YOU said that I gave you NO evidence

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't challenge the validity of apostolic succession -- in fact, I think it is a mainstay of the Church (see my post #1489). But that is far different from the primacy of the Roman bishop as "Pope."

Do we agree that there were 5 popes at the time in question?
This is the history being discussed.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

By doing so before he died.

There is no record of this occurence, it's just your opinion.

If Peter didn't do that, by whose authority did Pope #2 manage to gain the office?

By the authority of the Church. Or by acclamation of all bishops.

Luke 9:27, Mark 9:1, Matt. 16:28

Define "kingdom of God". Could it be "Thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Hmm, where have we seen that before???

 

[BreadOfLife]

YAWN….your old worn out nonsense…

KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH…
IS NOT a man becoming CONVERTED!!

Good Grief…

If you KNOW you are going to get a CAKE for your birthday….does that mean you already received it? Nonsense.

Lots of people KNOW THE TRUTH….but reject Believing the TRUTH…because Like you…they fail to Understand the TRUTH.

And again why it is a WOT to converse with you…the same as God tired of stubborn stiffnecked men.

WRONG.

Oida is the Greek word for "Knowledge".
Epignosis is the word for a full, experiential and relational knowledge - as in a marriage. It is an intimate knowledge.

If ALL you have is "oida" of your spouse - it's no WONDER why you're so angry . . .. . .

Protestant Scholarship on "Epignosis":
Richard Chenevix Trench
“In comparing epignosis with gnosis, the “epi” must be regarded as an intensive use of a preposition that gives the compound word a greater strength than the simple word alone possesses” (Synonyms of the New Testament, page 300).

Quoting Culverwell, he writes, “Epignosis and gnosis differ. Epignosis is the complete comprehension after the first knowledge (gnosin) of a matter. It is bringing me better acquainted with a thing I knew before; a more exact viewing of an object that I saw before afar off. That little portion of knowledge which we had here shall be much improved, our eye shall be raised to see the things more strongly and clearly” (Synonyms of the New Testament, page 300).

He goes on to say on the same page, “All Paul’s uses of epignosis justify and bear out this distinction. This same intensive use of epignosis is confirmed by similar passages in the New Testament and in the Septuagint. It also was recognized by the Greek fathers. Thus Chrysostom stated: ‘You knew (egnote), but it is necessary to know thoroughly (epignonai).”

J.B. Lightfoot
“The compound epignosis is an advance upon gnosis, denoting a larger and more thorough knowledge...Hence also epignosis is used especially of the knowledge of God and of Christ, as being the perfection of knowledge” (St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, page 138).

Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words
“epignosis, akin to A, No. 3, denotes "exact or full knowledge, discernment, recognition,"

“… in John 8:32, ‘ye shall know the truth,’ Gnosis (ginosko) is used, whereas in 1 Tim. 4:3, “them that believe and know the truth,’ Epignosis (epiginosko) lays stress on participation in the truth.”

The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (page 237):
1. Precise and correct knowledge
2. Knowledge of things ethical and divine
3. Of God, especially knowledge of His holy will and of the blessings which He has bestowed and constantly bestows on men through Christ
4. Of Christ, i.e., the true knowledge of Christ’s nature, dignity, benefits
5. Of God and Christ, i.e., to keep the knowledge of the one true God which has illumined the soul

Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 2, page 25:
1. Knowledge as recognition of the will of God that is effective in the conduct of the one who knows God
2. Christian faith

 

[BreadOfLife]

You pretending the Scripture is obsolete is ludicrous….
Body’s of men come from and return to the earth…

Souls do not come out from the earth.
Souls return to God IN Heaven or are SENT to Hell…they don’t roam about the earth outside of their body…nor remain in dead body’s.

Born again spirits return to God in Heaven who gave that spirit LIFE.

Natural spirits, never born again, die with a deceased body.

WHAT are you talking about??

THIS is what UI meant when I said that ALL you do is vomit out bizarre word salads that have NOTHING to do with the conversation.

STICJ to the topic . . .

No exceptions as you falsely teach…
No BODY has gone UP to Heaven, BUT the Body that came down from Heaven…JESUS.

IF ELIJAH’s BODY came down from Heaven”..
So also could it RETURN to Heaven.

Your FALSE preaching regarding MARY…nothing what so ever reveals her body was ever IN Heaven.

WHO said Elijah was in Heaven at the time of the Transfiguration??
He was in the Limbo of the Fathers/Sheol/Bosom of Abraham. Heaven was not yet opened because Jesus hadn't died and risen.

 

[Marymog]

You read the reports yourself. I don’t care to have a Pope discussion.

Very presumptive of you. No, I haven't read the reports myself.

You brought it up so I thought I would ask

Once again, another accusation with no evidence to back it up. Seems common on this forum....

 

[Marymog]

Sorry, got interrupted.

On the third....
I don't know what it has to do with anything...
But YES,,, OF COURSE I agree with what I said.

(I usually do!!).

You don't know what it has to do with anything? Well, it has to do with the inconsistency of what you said THEN compared to what you are saying now!


GG THEN: It became acceptable everywhere and common practice after Augustine......Infant baptism became common practice after Augustine.....even original sin came from him and thus, infant baptism.....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.

All 4 of those posts suggest that you believe that infants were not baptized in The Church BEFORE Augustine.

But in your most recent posts you said, I NEVER said that infants were not baptized from the beginning.

Soooo which post of yours do you agree with? Where infants baptized BEFORE Augustine? Or did The Church start baptizing infants AFTER and because of Augustine?

Patient Mary

 

[RedFan]

You're being dishonest - AGAIN.

I said that I proved his Primacy over the Apostles AND the Church.
YOU said that I gave you NO evidence

You are missing my point -- AGAIN. I already conceded Peter's primacy. That is not the issue. The issue is the successive Roman bishops' primacy. Can't you keep your eye on the ball?

 

[RedFan]

here is no record of this occurence, it's just your opinion.

I have no opinion on this one way or another. I don't know by what authority Pope #2 came to office. Neither do you. What I do know is, the primacy of that guy over all other bishops worldwide DOES NOT FOLLOW from Peter's primacy over the other apostles.

 

[Marymog]

I have no opinion on this one way or another. I don't know by what authority Pope #2 came to office. Neither do you. What I do know is, the primacy of that guy over all other bishops worldwide DOES NOT FOLLOW from Peter's primacy over the other apostles.

I am late to the party on this one, but I suspect that @BreadOfLife or @Jude Thaddeus has already brought up what happened at the Council of Jerusalem? When they voted to replace Judas. They used Psalm to guide them into their decision; when an office is vacated another shall take his place.

Since you agree on Peters primacy, would not the person who replaced him have primacy?

Mary

 

[Taken]

Converted is what Jesus taught.

Matt 18
[3] And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mark.4
[12] That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

John.12
[40] He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Acts.3
[19] Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;


If that doesn’t work for you…
You get the consequence.

Enjoy!



Epignosis[/B] is the word for a full, experiential and relational knowledge - as in a marriage. It is an intimate knowledge.

If ALL you have is "oida" of your spouse - it's no WONDER why you're so angry . . .. . .[/FONT]

Protestant Scholarship on "Epignosis":
Richard Chenevix Trench
“In comparing epignosis with gnosis, the “epi” must be regarded as an intensive use of a preposition that gives the compound word a greater strength than the simple word alone possesses” (Synonyms of the New Testament, page 300).

Quoting Culverwell, he writes, “Epignosis and gnosis differ. Epignosis is the complete comprehension after the first knowledge (gnosin) of a matter. It is bringing me better acquainted with a thing I knew before; a more exact viewing of an object that I saw before afar off. That little portion of knowledge which we had here shall be much improved, our eye shall be raised to see the things more strongly and clearly” (Synonyms of the New Testament, page 300).

He goes on to say on the same page, “All Paul’s uses of epignosis justify and bear out this distinction. This same intensive use of epignosis is confirmed by similar passages in the New Testament and in the Septuagint. It also was recognized by the Greek fathers. Thus Chrysostom stated: ‘You knew (egnote), but it is necessary to know thoroughly (epignonai).”

J.B. Lightfoot
“The compound epignosis is an advance upon gnosis, denoting a larger and more thorough knowledge...Hence also epignosis is used especially of the knowledge of God and of Christ, as being the perfection of knowledge” (St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, page 138).

Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words
“epignosis, akin to A, No. 3, denotes "exact or full knowledge, discernment, recognition,"

“… in John 8:32, ‘ye shall know the truth,’ Gnosis (ginosko) is used, whereas in 1 Tim. 4:3, “them that believe and know the truth,’ Epignosis (epiginosko) lays stress on participation in the truth.”

The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (page 237):
1. Precise and correct knowledge
2. Knowledge of things ethical and divine
3. Of God, especially knowledge of His holy will and of the blessings which He has bestowed and constantly bestows on men through Christ
4. Of Christ, i.e., the true knowledge of Christ’s nature, dignity, benefits
5. Of God and Christ, i.e., to keep the knowledge of the one true God which has illumined the soul

Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 2, page 25:
1. Knowledge as recognition of the will of God that is effective in the conduct of the one who knows God
2. Christian faith
[/QUOTE]

 

[Taken]

WHAT are you talking about??

Already established you are not equipped to understand.

 

[Taken]

Very presumptive of you. No, I haven't read the reports myself.

You brought it up so I thought I would ask

Once again, another accusation with no evidence to back it up. Seems common on this forum....

It wasn’t a presumption it was a directive to read for yourself.

I am not your researcher.

 

[Marymog]

It wasn’t a presumption it was a directive to read for yourself.

I am not your researcher.

It wasn’t a presumption it was a directive to read for yourself.

I am not your researcher.

Ah, I get it now. You were not telling me that I read the reports. You were telling me to read the reports for myself. That's the funny thing about the English language. One word can mean 2 different things. It is up to the person who delivers the message to make sure the message is clear. But we all overlook things.......I have done it myself.

I like it when a person backs their allegation with evidence. However, you seem to think that others should find the evidence of YOUR allegation on their own.

In the end you gave no evidence that the Pope preaches that people WANT to hear and that his preaching is opposite of the Truth!

AND I can't find any evidence to back up your statement soooooooooo where do we go from here?

Patient Mary

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I have no opinion on this one way or another. I don't know by what authority Pope #2 came to office. Neither do you.

I already told you. You are being obtuse.

What I do know is, the primacy of that guy over all other bishops worldwide DOES NOT FOLLOW from Peter's primacy over the other apostles.

The answer to that is in your own statement. Peter's primacy over the other apostles is well established in Scripture. Universal jurisdiction logically follows that fact. Pounding you over the head with lists of successive popes from St. Irenaeus (and others) won't make any difference on your fixed preconceptions so why should I bother digging up the evidence you have already decided isn't valid?

Biblical Arguments & Evidences For Papal Succession

It makes sense that there would continue to be a leader of the Church (papal succession from Peter), just as there are a succession of American Presidents.

www.patheos.com

Authority of the First Pope and the Development of the Papacy​

A Study of Apostolic Succession and Early Church Fathers

Explore the evolution of apostolic succession in Church history, highlighting early Church Fathers and their role in preserving doctrine.

www.catholic365.com

Could it be the Hound of Heaven is barking at your heels but you keep running faster?

 

[Truther]

Funny – your response had NOTHING to do with an “English lesson”.
As usual, it was just another case of heterodox flatulence.

Sorry for the big words . . .

I guess baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is all Greek to you.

 

[Truther]

No - Peter said it correctly.
The problem is with YOUR failure to understand what he meant.

"In the name of", "As per" Jesus Christ0

It ain't rocket science, son . . .. . .

Oh, I see, this is how you Catholics think… Peter said this, but what he really means is this…. Lol.