What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Truther]

Nope. And I still don't. Is there anyone who agrees with you?

Millions believe that the name of the father is Jesus, millions believe that the name of the son is Jesus and millions of believe that the name of the Holy Ghost is Jesus.

 

[Truther]

Don't mind, i just want to know, iron sharpens iron, am for you not against you, thank you.

You’re welcome, my friend.

 

[Truther]

i agree, because the Holy Bible exposes and judges so as the 'harlot', Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruit."

We're merely witnessing the truth, and readers and listeners are not to be deceived by teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. They draw near to GOD with their mouth, and honor HIM with their lips, but their heart is far from HIM. Therefore have they made the commandment of GOD of none effect by their tradition.

Shalom in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen, in Jesus name.

 

[Fred J]

I was once a Catholic and somebody showed me Acts 2:38. I owe it to my fellow man to let them know what somebody showed me.

We are of the Reformers, by GOD through Christ's will, we have the Holy Bible, so no man can lie or deceive us. We are no longer under human masters to shepherd us like in the Old Testament. For man of GOD as leaders or hired shepherds, miserably failed in the eyes of GOD according to the book of Ezekiel.

Finally GOD in HIS poured out frustration to Ezekiel said, there will come a day, I MYSELF will shepherd MY own lambs and sheep. So, Jesus the Emmanuel came already, and gave us the chosen 13 Apostles, to testify Him completing the New Testament.

Overall, Jesus personally have given us the universal 66 books Holy Bible, and made the New Testament in there as the Covenant with us. So we don't need a teacher to teach us, for we born again of water and of the Holy Ghost have the anointing placed in us to teach all things. (1John2:26-29)

At our church we do have Bishops as 'overseer' or an 'elder', and 'deacons' as helpers, who supposedly conduct themselves accordingly to the New Testament. (2Timothy3:16&17) They will indeed use the same New Testament and Old relatively scripture and doctrine to the church. Hence, only to bring to our remembrance and for the stir up of our memory on what we are learning or already learned. That is, all that Jesus and the Apostles, and the Prophets have spoken within.

For the record, we are teachable, but we must remember senior disciples are wiser than the junior disciples. We fellowship with people like them and listen, pay attention, refer the scripture and doctrine in context, then respond wisely. Remember in the epistle of James, wisdom teaches us, 'Quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger.'

For example, when i was a junior, learned passages out of context and in doctrine, shortsightedly went out ministering to others and contending with seniors. Then when i continued learning scripture and the doctrine in context, things varied, until i was ashamed the messed i've made, and stop doing so. Even though now, am careful and humble, because, 'iron sharpens iron' scripturally. Meaning, there can be brethren more scripturally senior and wiser than me, therefore am to put them to the test first.

In church every disciple lambs and sheep are to witness the truth, they are to distinguish between the 'spirit of truth' and 'spirit of error' within, even the man of GOD. Then they perceive, whether ones are of the Good Shepherd or merely 'imposters' and 'counterfeits' from the devil. Lambs and sheep may reason with them the truth to lead them back, but if ones are heart-harden, they are to avoid. Lambs and sheep follow only the voice of the Good Shepherd in the New Testament, not of strangers, and they flee if wolves in sheep clothing.

 

[Fred J]

I was once a Catholic and somebody showed me Acts 2:38. I owe it to my fellow man to let them know what somebody showed me.

Acts 2:38

Apostle Peter commanded to those crowd whom they've ministered the Gospel, to be baptized (with water apparently) every one of them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, first. Then consequently went on to say, 'and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.'

Even when 'water' is not mentioned in the passage, but wisdom teaches us in the same book of Acts in context, 'water' is mentioned. As in the account of the Eunuch cum Philip, again Peter cum household of Cornelius and Paul, Silas cum the Jailer, 'water' is used.

But there's no scripture that supports, 'infant baptism', for they're of the Old mentality as ones of the flesh addition. Merely as history tend to repeat itself, further extended men made laws and traditions. Seemingly to please GOD but on the other hand only to place burden on blind believers, the trend cum popularity. Again by this, they've made the commandment of GOD of none effect, making blind believers fit for hell like them. (Matthew 23:13&15)

'GOD is not an author of confusion.'

Remember, Jesus used the infants and children, and in context, calling us unwise adults to enter the Kingdom like these little ones wisely? So, we're to come and learn the scripture about the Kingdom like these little ones. Little ones who plainly pic up and accept as it is, for or as it is written rather, and understand the context according to the wisdom given them gradually.

Therefore, who 'subtracts' and 'adds' to the written and given scripture cum sound doctrine within? Those pertaining to teaching for doctrines the commands of men become later traditions the ones.

Apparently they're unwise shortsighted adults in scripture and doctrine. Ones still indulge in the flesh, are church men and denominational founded. Like the Jews whom GOD consigned them in disobedience, even leaders alike, over Israel or the Temple.

To conclude, what have the spirit of truth infants and children of the Kingdom got to do with fleshly spirit of error adults of the world in fellowship? None! Because we'll be only going back and forth in vain on one topic and out, and end nowhere. Little children, wisdom teaches us scripturally, that our Master did not go back and forth convincing Nicodemus about, even 'born again'.

Shalom in the name of Jesus Christ

 

[GodsGrace]

The problem here is that your objections are based heavily on Scriptural ignorance.

Priestly celibacy, indulgences, confessing to a priest, purgatory, intercession of the saints, veneration of relics – these things are ALL based in Scripture.

Really?
So why were priests allowed to get married until the year 1,200??

Paul preached about the benefits of celibacy as a more excellent way of service God. Priests in the Latin Rite are bound by the discipline of celibacy – but the Eastern Rites allow marriage for the clergy.

On the night of His Resurrection, Jesus said the following to His disciples:
John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

The practice of confessing your sins to the Church goes ALL the way back to the Apostles sand is also mentioned as necessary in the Didache (The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles) [AD 50].

The doctrine of Purgatory is based in verses like 2 Macc. 12:42-46, 1 Cor. 3:12-15, Matt. 5:25-26,
Matt. 12:32, Matt. 18:32-35 and Luke 12:58-59.

1 Cor. 3:12-15 speaks of suffering and eventual salvation - after death.
- It can’t be Heaven because there is suffering.
- It can’t be Hell because there is eventual salvation.
- It is speaking of a THIRD place – a place of final purification.

Rev. 8:5 shows the Elders in Heaven interceding on our behalf by taking our prayers to God as incense

Your repeated blunder of claiming that the Church is “secretly” making changes without providing some evidence is what makes your posts so silly . . .

No – it’s a mistake to think that the Church STARTED Baptizing babies because of what Augustine wrote.

Babies were always baptized from the very beginning.

§Apparently you don't know the history of baptism.

It's really not important to me that you know it, so I'm not going to post it here.
You should learn about it however.

Re Revelation:
Sure. When it suits you, it's used.
When it doesn't then it's all metaphor.

Whatever.

This was in practice centuries BEFORE Augustine.


I don't "distance" anyone from the Church. Those who hate and lie about the Church will do it anyway. I'm just here to expose them.
And I DO teach a class at my parish.

Unfortunately, I spend FAR more time exposing liars and those who misrepresent the Church – like YOU . . .

Bread, you're a nightmare to the Catholic faith.

This will be my last post to you.
You're ignorance of what's going on in the CC is astounding.
You should be more aware of daily happenings within the church.
I'll bow out so you could rant and rave with someone else....
it won't be me.

 

[GodsGrace]

Rome was NOT the head of the Church at the time. Advice and guidance are one thing. But Bishoprics in the East (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) did not recognize Rome's bishop as having authority over them.

I agree that it was not officially the head.
There were 5 important regions with 5 Bishops and no one Bishop was above the others.
I'm speaking about before only one was made Pope to be the official head, in the 4th century -if I remember.

However, if the other Bishops looked to Rome for advice when a problem arose,,,
defacto we could say that Rome was leading the Christian church....in some small way.

This is my understanding....it's not a hill I'm willing to fight on.

If I keep going to Jim for advice, and there are 4 other persons I could go to...
I'd say Jim is the defacto head of the operation.

 

[RedFan]

Millions believe that the name of the father is Jesus, millions believe that the name of the son is Jesus and millions of believe that the name of the Holy Ghost is Jesus.

You've taken a worldwide poll? Wow. That must have been exhausting!

 

[GodsGrace]

It's evident to me that you have been indoctrinated with typical Protestant misconceptions, the wallpaper of the evangelical world..

I don't consider myself to be Protestant.
And I'm not willing to CHOOSE what kind of Christian I should be so as to take sides.
For me there is no side.
There is ONE GOD.
We're all trying our best to serve Him.
We make up doctrine...
some is biblical, some is not.
Every denomination could teach what it sees fit.
I don't have to agree with it.
God is not stuck in a small box.
I like the ECFs.
And I love Jimmy.

 

[Fred J]

Millions believe that the name of the father is Jesus, millions believe that the name of the son is Jesus and millions of believe that the name of the Holy Ghost is Jesus.

Do you believe this friend?

 

[RedFan]

I agree that it was not officially the head.
There were 5 important regions with 5 Bishops and no one Bishop was above the others.
I'm speaking about before only one was made Pope to be the official head, in the 4th century -if I remember.

However, if the other Bishops looked to Rome for advice when a problem arose,,,
defacto we could say that Rome was leading the Christian church....in some small way.

This is my understanding....it's not a hill I'm willing to fight on.

If I keep going to Jim for advice, and there are 4 other persons I could go to...
I'd say Jim is the defacto head of the operation.

Fair point. Let me push back just a little.

Just as all of the apostles were commissioned with the same power to bind and to loose that Matt. 16:19 references as being conferred on Peter (see John 20:22-23), so all of the apostles had power to appoint successors and bishops in cities throughout the Mediterranean world, with equal authority – and they did so. Why should the passage of Peter’s power be deemed preeminent? Why not treat all apostolic successions as equal, free of the oversight of Rome?

Cyprian was a champion of this view of episcopal autonomy: ‘And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;’ yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.”

“And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.” CHURCH FATHERS: Treatise 1 (Cyprian of Carthage)

 

[GodsGrace]

I did. Click on the link in Post #766.

If the Papacy had widely recognized authority over Eastern dioceses in AD 325, why do YOU think Alexander didn't take the easy course of just appealing to Pope Sylvester to anathemize the Arian heresy?

@Jude Thaddeus is correct in his statement in post 771.

Councils were specifically called to OFFICIALLY state what the church believed.
Especially at the time of Nicea, WHICH "POPE" would have had the authority to anathemize anything?
None.

I don't believe one office of Pope even existed at this time and not until about 380AD.

 

[RedFan]

I don't believe one office of Pope even existed at this time and not until about 380AD.

That's true. Alexandria called its bishop "Pope" in early fourth-century, and other bishoprics did as well. It was an honorific term for Metropolitan Archbishops, and didn't take on the connotation of exclusive reference to the Bishop of Rome until later.

 

[GodsGrace]

Fair point. Let me push back just a little.

Just as all of the apostles were commissioned with the same power to bind and to loose that Matt. 16:19 references as being conferred on Peter (see John 20:22-23), so all of the apostles had power to appoint successors and bishops in cities throughout the Mediterranean world, with equal authority – and they did so. Why should the passage of Peter’s power be deemed preeminent? Why not treat all apostolic successions as equal, free of the oversight of Rome?

Cyprian was a champion of this view of episcopal autonomy: ‘And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;’ yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.”

“And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.” CHURCH FATHERS: Treatise 1 (Cyprian of Carthage)

Of course the biblical answer is that Jesus gave the keys (which represent authority) to Peter.
It certainly would seem that He desired that Peter be the head of the new church that had to be created because the Jews had denied Jesus as Messiah.

We could also see that Peter is always named first in lists of the Apostles.
This was a matter of respect.
I'd say that he and Paul did the most to further Christianity.

Legally and authoritatively all the Apostles had the same power.

I just stick to my original statement that one person will always become the leader....
no matter that everyone in a group will have the same authority.
This happens in families, companies, churches and everywhere.

I do like the ECFs BTW, and depend on them a lot when the bible is not clear about something.
(don't know if you feel the same but I respect your knowledge of history ... not too many Christians are interested).

 

[GodsGrace]

That's true. Alexandria called its bishop "Pope" in early fourth-century, and other bishoprics did as well. It was an honorific term for Metropolitan Archbishops, and didn't take on the connotation of exclusive reference to the Bishop of Rome until later.

The five regions were:
ALEXANDRIA
ROME
ANTIOCH
CONSTANTINOPLE
JERUSALEM

They each had a Pope.
As you've stated, the title became exclusive to the Bishop of Rome in about 380AD.
Then the CC decided to call every Bishop of Rome POPE, going back to Peter.
I think this is historically incorrect of them....but it could be debated.

 

[Taken]

WRONG.

Jesus revealed the idea of His Church to a relatively small number of people, who in turn revealed it to the WORLD.

These men were the first Catholics – Jew and Gentile.

Hey – YOU’RE the one who said it . . .


It was Jesus and His Apostles who built the Catholic Church.


Then you disagree with Scripture.

Rev. 5:8 shows the Elders in Heaven interceding on our behalf to God.

Ahhh, yes – the old “gaslighting” ploy every time you don’t have a valid response . . .

Nothing new…still operating on your delusion of self-grandure.

 

[Marymog]

It's wrong to ask that priests not marry.
There is no mention of this in the NT AND the REASON why the church decided in 1,200AD that they should remain single is for purely convenient reasons having nothing to do with spirituality.

Hello GG,

Well, first off, there are married Catholic priests.

2nd off, the men that choose to be priest are not asked not to marry. When they choose the sacred priestly profession THEY agree not to marry and remain celibate!

3rd off, it is in the NT: 1 Cor 7:7, 1 Cor 7:32–35, Matthew 19:12

Now that Scripture has proven your false teachers wrong, will you stop listening to them?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Really?
So why were priests allowed to get married until the year 1,200??

Hi GG,

According to Jesus whatever The Church binds on earth it is bound in heaven. Due to abuses of some men in The Church and inconsistent practices throughout The Church celibacy/no marriage was made a requirement by The Church if one CHOSE to become a priest.

I don't know what Protestant denomination you belong to, but do you adhere to the rules that your men require of you?

Curious Mary

 

[Truther]

We are of the Reformers, by GOD through Christ's will, we have the Holy Bible, so no man can lie or deceive us. We are no longer under human masters to shepherd us like in the Old Testament. For man of GOD as leaders or hired shepherds, miserably failed in the eyes of GOD according to the book of Ezekiel.

Finally GOD in HIS poured out frustration to Ezekiel said, there will come a day, I MYSELF will shepherd MY own lambs and sheep. So, Jesus the Emmanuel came already, and gave us the chosen 13 Apostles, to testify Him completing the New Testament.

Overall, Jesus personally have given us the universal 66 books Holy Bible, and made the New Testament in there as the Covenant with us. So we don't need a teacher to teach us, for we born again of water and of the Holy Ghost have the anointing placed in us to teach all things. (1John2:26-29)

At our church we do have Bishops as 'overseer' or an 'elder', and 'deacons' as helpers, who supposedly conduct themselves accordingly to the New Testament. (2Timothy3:16&17) They will indeed use the same New Testament and Old relatively scripture and doctrine to the church. Hence, only to bring to our remembrance and for the stir up of our memory on what we are learning or already learned. That is, all that Jesus and the Apostles, and the Prophets have spoken within.

For the record, we are teachable, but we must remember senior disciples are wiser than the junior disciples. We fellowship with people like them and listen, pay attention, refer the scripture and doctrine in context, then respond wisely. Remember in the epistle of James, wisdom teaches us, 'Quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger.'

For example, when i was a junior, learned passages out of context and in doctrine, shortsightedly went out ministering to others and contending with seniors. Then when i continued learning scripture and the doctrine in context, things varied, until i was ashamed the messed i've made, and stop doing so. Even though now, am careful and humble, because, 'iron sharpens iron' scripturally. Meaning, there can be brethren more scripturally senior and wiser than me, therefore am to put them to the test first.

In church every disciple lambs and sheep are to witness the truth, they are to distinguish between the 'spirit of truth' and 'spirit of error' within, even the man of GOD. Then they perceive, whether ones are of the Good Shepherd or merely 'imposters' and 'counterfeits' from the devil. Lambs and sheep may reason with them the truth to lead them back, but if ones are heart-harden, they are to avoid. Lambs and sheep follow only the voice of the Good Shepherd in the New Testament, not of strangers, and they flee if wolves in sheep clothing.

That is an awesome post you just made. May I ask you a question, do you guys in your church celebrate and obey Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation?

 

[Truther]

Acts 2:38

Apostle Peter commanded to those crowd whom they've ministered the Gospel, to be baptized (with water apparently) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, first. Then consequently went on to say, 'and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.'

Even 'water' is not mentioned in the passage, but wisdom teaches us in the same book of Acts, 'water' is mentioned. In the account of the Eunuch and Philip. and again Peter in the household of Cornelius.

But there's no scripture that supports, 'infant baptism', for they're of the Old and yet ones of the flesh. Merely as history tend to repeat itself, extended man made laws and traditions to please GOD and place burden on blind believers the trend. Again by this, they've made the commandment of GOD of none effect, making blind believers fit for hell like them. (Matthew 23:13&15)

'GOD is not an author of confusion.'

Remember, Jesus used the infants and children, and the context is, calling us unwise adults to enter the Kingdom like these little ones? So, we've come to learn the scripture about the Kingdom like these little ones. Like these little ones pic up and accept as it is, for or as it is written rather, and understand according to the wisdom give us, the context.

Therefore, who 'subtract' and 'add' to the written and given scripture and sound doctrine within? As pertaining to teaching for doctrines the commands of men become later in tradition?

Apparently by the unwise shortsighted adults in scripture and doctrine, still indulge in the flesh church men and denomination. As like the Jews whom GOD consigned them in disobedience, even leaders reside in Israel and the Temple.

And to conclude, what have spirit of truth infants and children of the Kingdom to do with fleshly of error adults of the world in fellowship? None! Because we'll be only going back and forth in vain on one topic and out, and end nowhere. Little children, wisdom teaches us scripturally, our Master did not go back and forth convincing Nicodemus about even, 'born again'.

Shalom in the name of Jesus Christ

If water is not mentioned per baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, then are you guys reading it like this?

Then Peter said unto them repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?