What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Truther]

What church body, where do you fellowship? Where do spend Sundays or Saturdays if you are sabbatarian. Just answer the question or say that you don’t attend a church or fellowship.

LCL in CA. I also teach there

 

[Truther]

So, you limit the Kingdom to you and. . . I have huge problems with Rome but I don’t exclude all RC’s from the Kingdom. Only King Jesus gets to say whose in and whose out.

Listen, he said that the king had a wedding and there was a man without a wedding garment on in the wedding. He was taken and cast into outer darkness. The Bible says we put on Christ. That’s a wedding garment. That comes from being baptized into Christ in the name of Jesus Christ. Anybody that is not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ has no remission of sins and no wedding garment. Scary stuff.

 

[Truther]

catholic church canonized the Bible?

There were no pope nor the clergies nor catholic church then who canonized the Bible. It's merely like taking someone else work and putting one's label on it to make it theirs.

Actually it was the bishops from the churches in Rome summoned by emperor constantine, who canonized the Bible. These i believe were the true successors of the established church of the Romans in the New Testament, Apostle Paul writes to. Where also in another epistle of his, relatively Paul instructs Timothy that in all the churches, to elect 'Bishops' and 'Deacons'.

Way after constantine, later came the translated from Greek, the latin vulgate of Jerome, ordered by pope damasus of the catholic church.

The ancient 4th century Catholic Church was not what we see today. It was just a splinter group of bishops that gradually formed into the conglomerate that it is today. I use the term loosely.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Assumption existed from early on, but was not formalized until 1950. And it is based on Apostolic Tradition (the "oral tradition" mentioned in 2 Thes. 2:15). The New Testament came from Apostolic Tradition, which preceded the New Testament, but not all of Apostolic Tradition was written into the New Testament. If one takes a sola scriptura approach to Divine Revelation, one ends up missing a lot, including that nowhere in Scripture does it support the notion of sola scriptura.

Oral tradition.
I do hear about this.....

I base all my beliefs on written documents.
I don't trust oral succession too much because it could be changed at any moment in time.

I did a little study on the assumption a few years ago and I can't find anything to substantiate this.

If you could help me out, it would be appreciated.
But oral tradition won't cut the mustard.

Not for anything.

 

[Augustin56]

Oral tradition.
I do hear about this.....

I base all my beliefs on written documents.
I don't trust oral succession too much because it could be changed at any moment in time.

I did a little study on the assumption a few years ago and I can't find anything to substantiate this.

If you could help me out, it would be appreciated.
But oral tradition won't cut the mustard.

Not for anything.

Hmmmm. Without oral tradition, you don't have a New Testament. The New Testament wasn't written while Jesus walked the earth, but some time after. (Not immediately.) All teaching as done orally. Some of what was taught was eventually written down, and some of what was written down was eventually (late 4th century) decided to be worthy of being called Scripture. That's the New Testament. The Catholic Church, at the Councils of Rome (383 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) went through over 300+ documents, praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance, and came up with the 27 books we all agree that make up the New Testament. Some documents that some were "sure" would make the cut didn't (Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, etc.).

That aside, here are a couple of articles that may help clear up some of the confusion:

Where Is the Immaculate Conception in the Bible?

Protestants claim that Scripture has no evidence of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. But in fact, the evidence is all over the place.

www.catholic.com

The Assumption of Mary in History | Catholic Answers

Discover the scriptural and historical evidence behind the Catholic belief in the Assumption of Mary. Explore the Faith from its earliest days. catholic.com

www.catholic.com

 

[GodsGrace]

No, the mucho commentaria caused all the denominations and spin offs.

Sola Scriptura is the fix.

Right.
That's why there are splinter groups over the smallest nuance.

 

[GodsGrace]

I am Anglican. You don’t need to point out that that my church body is in serious trouble

My brother moved to So Carolina and joined an Anglican church. Don't know what kind.
Every church body is in trouble.
Atheism reigns supreme among the young.

not because of sola scriptura but because the rejection of the same. The US expression of Anglicanism is the Episcopal church and it is in a death spiral from which it is unlikely to recover. To be clear I am not a member of this body rather I am part of the Reformed Episcopal church , a constituent member of the Anglican Church of North America.

Agreed. The Episcopal church in England is very liberal and trying its best to adhere to the world paradigm.
This doesn't seem to be working out very well. More and more persons are leaving the church in disappointment.
Ditto for Italy. The young want nothing to do with Christianity - no matter the denomination.
Rome keeps trying new things, but what would work, IMHO, would be to go back to what the early Christians did, including the Apostles and Paul. Just preach the bible and stop with all the nonsense..

Those that don't want to be a part of the church can go their own way.
Those that do need a church that is spiritual and responds to their spiritual needs.
We get enough of the world in the world.

However, if institutional unity a measure of catholicity then where is the place for doctrinal unity? To put it succinctly, I, as an Anglican, have more in common with a confessional Lutheran or a confessional Presbyterian or even a Baptist than you do with the leaders of your church.

The reformed church is probably the most united these days, but I don't know enough about its unity.
I know that their doctrine is not mainstream and could be called heretical in the true sense of the word ----
not in orthodox teaching....

Not sure what you mean about my leaders of my church.
I don't belong to any particular church in the sense that you mean.
I am currently attending the CC.
But I can't say I accept every doctrine - which excludes me from being defined as Catholic.

So if Sola Scriptura doesn’t work then what does? Because it isn’t the Papacy or the idea of a magisterium. Rome can’t keep its doctrine consistent from one century to the next. I have a serious problem with all of your doctrinal and institutional unity when I see Francis backtrack centuries of Romish teaching or have to endure Fr John Martin sj go soft on human sexuality. And by soft I mean tacit or active approval.
In fact, we probably have far more in common than the majority of your own communion.

I don't care for Francis or Martin....what a pick, BTW!
It's just like him.
Liberal,,,,but won't admit it.
Keeps his statements clouded so he could always go back and find some way to deny what he clearly stated.
I just hope he hasn't changed the Papacy forever, but I fear that he has.

What does work, you ask....
For me what works is the teachings of the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers.
If we can't trust them....I don't know who we can trust.

As to Islam and Judaism you betray your ignorance. They are at least as divided. In the case of Islam they might be more divided than Christ’s Church especially if you are familiar with Islam’s foundational formularies. The Quran, the collection of Hadith and biographies of Mohammed. The later two vary widely depending on the school of Islamic jurisprudence. As to Judaism, you can’t find another faith that’s further away from its foundational tenants. Just witness a reformed Jewish worship service and walk up the street to another. To say nothing of liberal Jewish to say nothing of conservative or Orthodox Jewish thought.

There are different sects of Islam but they're well defined and within each sect there is unity.
If you're saying that not everyone within Islam agrees with the rules they must follow,,,then I agree totally.
It's unfortunate that they can't escape their imprisonment which is kept through fear.

As to Judaism, I'd have to say that the same is true.
Within the top 3 that I know of....in each category the beliefs are basically the same.

You don't agree with this?

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, think about the perspective of the early Christians for a moment. They weren't like us who have literacy in our blood. Everything we do today is recorded somehow, either by video, in writing, or some other method. Back then, the vast majority of people could neither read nor write. And those that could surely didn't write everything down. Most teaching by the Church and the first Christians was done orally. And what they did write down was usually more important in their eyes. There was not, at that time, any perceived need to defend the faith regarding doctrine of the Assumption. The big "battle" against the faith at that time was against the Gnostics, who happened to agree with that doctrine. So, that doctrine continued to be taught...orally.

I agree with some....
but I just don't see the Assumption anywhere.
HOW could you ever know that it was spoken of?

 

[GodsGrace]

My issue with the Assumption is based on my understanding of the Immaculate Conception and its ramifications for the consequences of "original" sin inherited from Adam and Eve. If Mary was conceived without original sin, and original sin is the reason humans die physically, then of course she couldn't suffer physical death -- but by the same token, neither should any believer whose original sin is forgiven. Yet even forgiven believers die physically. Why does that still happen? Every answer I have ever gotten from a Catholic has been unsatisfactory.

Interesting.
About the death idea.

BUT
Why can't God make an exception?
Don't you think God can do whatever He wishes to do?

I believe in the IC because it makes perfect sense and because the Early Fathers spoke to it.
HOW could God place His Son in the body of a person with the sin nature in full force?

I don't have a problem with believing that God can remove the sin nature from the Mother of God , if He feels it's the right thing to do.

I mean, is Jesus God or not?
IF He IS God....then how is He conceived in a sinful body?

The IC is fine and written of....

 

[GodsGrace]

This.

I feel sorry for @Truther , if what I am reading is correct he/she has no fellowship. To give some context I spent two weeks in icu about two years ago. Yet I had my pastor/presbyter as well as my friends and other pastors came and visited me in the hospital and give extreme unction. I had no doubt who would minister to me and my family if I had passed.

Today, the same pastor retired and we have a farewell and Godspeed service to him and his family. He is 72 and served our congregation for 22 years. I pray you have the experience.

We very much need the support of Christians.
Do Not Forsake The Assembling of Yourselves. (Hebrews 10)

Birds of a feather, flock together!
(and with good reason).

 

[GodsGrace]

Should the Jonestown followers had best stay put or leave?

You compare
CHRISTIANITY
to a
CULT?!

 

[GodsGrace]

Hmmmm. Without oral tradition, you don't have a New Testament. The New Testament wasn't written while Jesus walked the earth, but some time after. (Not immediately.) All teaching as done orally. Some of what was taught was eventually written down, and some of what was written down was eventually (late 4th century) decided to be worthy of being called Scripture. That's the New Testament. The Catholic Church, at the Councils of Rome (383 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) went through over 300+ documents, praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance, and came up with the 27 books we all agree that make up the New Testament. Some documents that some were "sure" would make the cut didn't (Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, etc.).

That aside, here are a couple of articles that may help clear up some of the confusion:

Where Is the Immaculate Conception in the Bible?

Protestants claim that Scripture has no evidence of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. But in fact, the evidence is all over the place.

www.catholic.com

The Assumption of Mary in History | Catholic Answers

Discover the scriptural and historical evidence behind the Catholic belief in the Assumption of Mary. Explore the Faith from its earliest days. catholic.com

www.catholic.com

Thanks for the links!

 

[Truther]

You compare
CHRISTIANITY
to a
CULT?!

To me, cult has various meanings. One of the most basic meanings in my mind is to follow someone blindly. Jim Jones was an extreme example of that. But like the old saying goes “I was born a Catholic and I’ll die Catholic“. That’s what I used to say when I was young. That was my defense against people witnessing to me. I was in a Catholic cult. Kind of get what I’m saying?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Thanks for the links!

Here's a few more links you may (or may not) find interesting:

BODILY ASSUMPTION
Bodily Assumption of Mary (John Saward: Protestant) [edited in 1994; Facebook]

Cardinal Newman on the Bodily Assumption of Mary [edited in 1994]

Ven. Fulton Sheen on the Bodily Assumption of Mary [edited in 1994]

Assumption & Immaculate Conception: Part of Apostolic Tradition (vs. James White) [June 1996]

Mary’s Assumption: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant [1-21-02]

Bodily Assumption of Mary: Harmonious with the Bible? [2002]

Mary’s Assumption: Brief Explanation, with a New (?) Biblical Parallel [3-1-07]

Mary’s Assumption vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture? [4-22-07]

Mary’s Assumption & “Reformer” Heinrich Bullinger [4-6-08]

Mary’s Assumption & Historic Protestantism [6-30-08]

Immaculate Conception and Assumption: Why Defined So Late? [2-1-09]

Mary’s Bodily Assumption: Eleven Related Bible Passages [2009]

Defending Mary (Revelation 12 & Her Assumption) [5-28-12]

Is Mary’s Assumption Able to be Inferred from Scripture Alone? [8-14-15]

Bible on Mary’s Assumption [2015]

Mary’s Death Before Her Assumption: Required Belief? [2-27-17]
*
“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #7: Mary’s Assumption [3-1-17]
*
Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #6: Assumption, Queen Redux [10-19-17]
*
Biblical Arguments in Support of Mary’s Assumption [National Catholic Register, 8-15-18]
*
Mary’s Assumption & Death (?): Debunking James Swan [11-23-19]
*
Mary’s Assumption: Patristic Analogy to Protestant Distinctives (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-15-20]
*
Mary’s Assumption: Remarkably Fair Protestant Take [9-15-20]
*
Debate on Mary’s Assumption & the Bible (vs. Matt Slick) [11-17-20]
*
Mary’s Assumption & Biblical Evidence (Analogies) [11-30-21]
*
Anti-Catholic Argument (!) for Mary’s Assumption [3-11-22]
*
Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs) (Strictly Biblical Arguments Regarding the Papacy & Mary’s Immaculate Conception & Assumption) [5-3-22]
*
Reply to Steve Christie on Catholic Mariology (Part I: Steve’s 15-Minute Opening Statement, Covering the Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, & Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) [+ Part II / Part III] [7-12-23]
*
End of Mary’s Life & James Swan’s Ignorance of Catholicism [6-7-24]
*
Luther & Mary’s Assumption + James Swan’s Silliness [6-19-24]

 

[BreadOfLife]

Let’s face it Catholic, you are not in the bride of Christ. You will not take the grooms name. You refuse to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. You are one of those common law wives.

Let’s face it, quasi-Christian – you don’t know that Peter was talking about in Acts 2:38 because you ignore the words of Jesus Himself in Matt. 28L19.

Here's a clue:
When in doubt about an interpretation of what the Master said – go straight to the words of the Master Himself . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The RCC Bible is corrupt as rotten fruit. I have one here at my house. I use it for a door stop. It has a picture of the pope in it. It makes a great dart board. Hit it and the nose lights up. lol

I see that you completely FAILED to answer the questions I asked.

ONE more time, son . . .
Can you tell me the difference between the “Catholic” Bible and YOUR Bible
WHEN the the “Catholic” Bible come into existence?

This should be easy for a "genius" like YOU . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

To me, cult has various meanings. One of the most basic meanings in my mind is to follow someone blindly. Jim Jones was an extreme example of that. But like the old saying goes “I was born a Catholic and I’ll die Catholic“. That’s what I used to say when I was young. That was my defense against people witnessing to me. I was in a Catholic cult. Kind of get what I’m saying?

You're not young anymore.
Get with the program.

 

[GodsGrace]

I see that you completely FAILED to answer the questions I asked.

ONE more time, son . . .
Can you tell me the difference between the “Catholic” Bible and YOUR Bible
WHEN the the “Catholic” Bible come into existence?

This should be easy for a "genius" like YOU . . .

HOW do you do this?!
I just can't !!

 

[GodsGrace]

Here's a few more links you may (or may not) find interesting:

BODILY ASSUMPTION
Bodily Assumption of Mary (John Saward: Protestant) [edited in 1994; Facebook]

Cardinal Newman on the Bodily Assumption of Mary [edited in 1994]

Ven. Fulton Sheen on the Bodily Assumption of Mary [edited in 1994]

Assumption & Immaculate Conception: Part of Apostolic Tradition (vs. James White) [June 1996]

Mary’s Assumption: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant [1-21-02]

Bodily Assumption of Mary: Harmonious with the Bible? [2002]

Mary’s Assumption: Brief Explanation, with a New (?) Biblical Parallel [3-1-07]

Mary’s Assumption vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture? [4-22-07]

Mary’s Assumption & “Reformer” Heinrich Bullinger [4-6-08]

Mary’s Assumption & Historic Protestantism [6-30-08]

Immaculate Conception and Assumption: Why Defined So Late? [2-1-09]

Mary’s Bodily Assumption: Eleven Related Bible Passages [2009]

Defending Mary (Revelation 12 & Her Assumption) [5-28-12]

Is Mary’s Assumption Able to be Inferred from Scripture Alone? [8-14-15]

Bible on Mary’s Assumption [2015]

Mary’s Death Before Her Assumption: Required Belief? [2-27-17]
*
“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #7: Mary’s Assumption [3-1-17]
*
Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #6: Assumption, Queen Redux [10-19-17]
*
Biblical Arguments in Support of Mary’s Assumption [National Catholic Register, 8-15-18]
*
Mary’s Assumption & Death (?): Debunking James Swan [11-23-19]
*
Mary’s Assumption: Patristic Analogy to Protestant Distinctives (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-15-20]
*
Mary’s Assumption: Remarkably Fair Protestant Take [9-15-20]
*
Debate on Mary’s Assumption & the Bible (vs. Matt Slick) [11-17-20]
*
Mary’s Assumption & Biblical Evidence (Analogies) [11-30-21]
*
Anti-Catholic Argument (!) for Mary’s Assumption [3-11-22]
*
Response to an Inquiring Protestant (Austin Suggs) (Strictly Biblical Arguments Regarding the Papacy & Mary’s Immaculate Conception & Assumption) [5-3-22]
*
Reply to Steve Christie on Catholic Mariology (Part I: Steve’s 15-Minute Opening Statement, Covering the Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, & Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) [+ Part II / Part III] [7-12-23]
*
End of Mary’s Life & James Swan’s Ignorance of Catholicism [6-7-24]
*
Luther & Mary’s Assumption + James Swan’s Silliness [6-19-24]

Oh my!
Where was all this stuff when I needed it?

@Augustin56 sent me a link too. He sent 2 but I'm really only interested in the Assumption.

This will take some time!
I print stuff out and then read it and then get back to the member who posted it for me.
I just might forget in this case (by the time I've gone thru it all).
Thanks!

 

[BreadOfLife]

As you certainly must know....
any dogma, even if accepted by the church at a later point in time...
MUST have had its beginnings in the early church.
It must have been mentioned in some writing or must have been believed by some church doctor or others.
Then, after some time, the church just sees fit to make it official by declaring it a dogma or a doctrine.

But I'm adverse to changing even teachings.
If a teaching is changed, it can only mean one thing:
It was wrong before or it's wrong now.

Revelation is fine....but the above problem still exists and
many become distrustful of the church, saying that if it could be wrong
about THIS (whatever it may be) then it could be wrong about other teachings.

My 2 cents.
You can believe what you may about this.
It's my personal opinion and one to which I will adhere.

It's precisely this attitude that been responsible for the loss of MANY souls.
MY 2 cents don’t mean a thing when it’s in opposition to the truth . . .

In the Early Church, you don’t find many things written about accepted truths.
The ECFs usually wrote about things that were challenged by others. The Church doesn’t “invent’ doctrines. When the Church officially defined a doctrine, it was usually at a Council because of such a challenge to that particular belief.

For example – the belief in the Eucharist is a core belief of the Church. And, although you see Early Church writings about it – you don’t see a lot of documents defending this belief because it was so widely and generally accepted as truth.