What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Jude Thaddeus]

TYPICAL…

Accusation…
Jesus was water baptised.
the Bible mentions water baptism.
Snarky implication.

Missing…substance…
Point of water baptism?
Necessity of water baptism?
Resulting effect with water baptism?
Resulting effect without water baptism?

You are contradicting yourself. "Born again" means born of water and the spirit in baptism.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

TYPICAL…
Snarky remark.

TYPICAL…
Ignorance…”cherry picking” scriptures that APPLY to YOU…Identifying the Scripture BY Book, Chapter, Verse….but writing your own word, according to YOUR limited spiritual understanding and attempting to APPLY them to others.

I am not subject to YOUR limited Understanding

You make extensive use of metaphors, then you say:

I am not a tree.

Every many IS JUDGED…the saved and unsaved.
EACH will have WORKS that did not glorify God and those works shall be burned.

Another off topic point that you know nothing about. Those who are purified by burning are not hell bound, and not yet in heaven. You have no clue WHERE they are, so you make another false dichotomy of "saved and unsaved". Calvin did that repeatedly.

Correct…No hope of fence sitting. One is either WITH Him or WITHOUT Him.
* While a man IS ALIVE in his FLESH, he can be with, without, with, without the Lord God.
And so ALSO, shall the Lord God be with, without, with, without that individual man.
(That Applies to you.)
* While a man IS ALIVE in his FLESH, he can PLEDGE the whole of his LIFE, body, soul, spirit unto BEING WITH the Lord God FOREVER…The Lord God, Searches the mans HEART, that the word of his Pledge be TRUE…
“IF” that mans PLEDGE be TRUE…”THAT” mans WHOLE life, body, soul, spirit “IS” Accepted by God…AND … Gods SPIRIT enters “THAT” man, dwells “WITHIN” “THAT” man and “THAT” man dwells “WITHIN” the risen body of Christ Jesus…(until the day that man’s OWN body is risen UP in it’s own glory)….
THIS ONE TIME act, BETWEEN the Lord God and “THAT” one man…SEALS FOREVER The Lord God and “THAT” man shall BE one “WITH” the other.
(This is called a man’s LIVING SACRIFICE).
THIS applies to me.

I am not questioning your salvation, I listed numerous verses on Jesus' teaching on losing ones salvation than you arrogantly deny. Worse, you claimed BofL posted no scriptures that clearly disproved OSAS, a blatant lie you are not getting away with.

Correct…FOR ONE to BE forever with another….REQUIRES the “TWO” to BE IN AN AGREEMENT based IN TRUTH.

off topic

Correct…Some men can RECEIVE the hearing, the reading of the word of the Invisible God…and feel joy in the hope of His words, while others dismiss to believe what they can not see…and some begin to believe in the hope, encounter a hardship, reject the hope…BECAUSE THEY FAILED to recognize the Perfect Peace God Offers, is in a Spiritual Life…NOT a Moral life.

You refuse to understand the metaphor of seeds that sprout, but wither and die, but make a long list of metaphors.

Of course. FAITH is a trusting BELIEF…IN Something. God never PROMISED to “MAKE” a mans NATURAL FLESH “PERFECT”… So when a mans “Natural flesh” suffers a hardship…men IGNORANT of what God DID PROMISE…boo hoo…reject the invisible God…and LOOK for something “tangible” to put their BELIEF and TRUST IN.

Nobody is talking natural flesh. We are talking about the OSAS myth invented by John Calvin whom you say you don't follow. You insist on preaching this falsehood while being ignorant of its origins.

The prodigal son, did not DIE. He left the fathers home, Unprepared IN Godly Knowledge, squandered his inheritance on foolish behaviors and lustful desires and ended up with…nothing…broke, that even other people/women did not desire him…without God, whom he himself left behind …
AND…? Returned to his dad, whom the son could NOW SEE, putting God FIRST, (as did his dad)…then shall God bless and continue to bless a man with needs.

Another off topic escape.

Correct… CALLING is a Two WAY necessity.
The Lord CALLS…He CALLS MANY. He CALLED TWELVE…
ELEVEN CALLED BACK to the Lord.
ONE did Not Call Back to the Lord.

So Judas, called to be an Apostle, was never saved to begin with? Your privatized OSAS contradicts itself.

Correct. You want the comparison view…
A Literal shell with a seed is planted in Dirt.
The shell Opens (dying) and a seed is revealed.
The seed IN dirt begins growing, developing, sprouts roots in the dirt.
The plants springs forth above the dirt.
The plant develops buds.
The buds begins growing fruit.
The ROOTS feeds the plant.
The ROOTS spread out in search of NUTRIENTS to send forth up to the plant.
“IF” and “WHEN” the dirt is Depleted of Nutrients…the Roots will begin to wither, the plant will begin to wither, the fruit will begin to wither…and BECOME DEAD, and of NO USE for the benefit of the man to eat and receive necessary nutrients to sustain his body of flesh.

That OSAS claims the plant can't die. Again, your refute yourself.

Spiritually it is a parallel to man … who begins “TASTING” the Word of God…(ie the GOOD FRUIT of God)…mmmm yummy…yum yum mans taste buds in his mouth….BUT WAIT…
Oooh….some of Gods Words (Fruit) are SCARY…Some of Gods Words REQUIRE a “COMMITMENT”….IF one chooses TO go beyond “TASTING”….and “EAT” Gods words….GEE…For some…
The “TASTING” is not bad…but..but…but..”IF” I “EAT”…. what exactly do I have to give up “eating”….that my FLESH desires?
…..For some…Chocolate?, Coffee?, Daily case of Beer?Whipped cream smeared on the naked bodies of random available whores?, Sopping my bread on the blood of a rare cut of beef?.
….For some…GEE….I don’t think, I am ready to commit to “EATING” what the Lord provides…When there are SOOOOO many choices, that manKIND provides…with NO nutrimental value, but tastes good and eating is satisfying… seriously…it’s SO COOL…men can mix chemical comp to come to sounds that does not even require dirt, roots, plants and all that effort… ya individual have choices.

Another word salad that has nothing to do with the false teaching of your privatized OSAS. I say "privatized" because you refuse to come to terms with the man who invented it.

 

[Taken]

WRONG.

Aking with the other DOZEN or so Scriptural warnings I gave you - I have shown you the following verses a well. So far, you have FEILED to address what they mean:

Rev. 3:5
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.

God cannot blot out a name that was never there in the first place. He is talking about CHRISTIANS who are already saved and how they can LOSE their salvation.


Rev. 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

How can God “take away” somebody’s “share” of heaven if they never had it to begin with? This is about CHRISTIANS who may or may NOT make it into Heaven.

You want to SEE WRONG…look in the mirror!

Why don’t you DO YOUR OWN STUDYING?
BOOKS….plural there are as I told you BOOKS!
Rev 20:12

God KNOWS US BEFORE He formed us in the womb…He knows our name…
Jer 1:5
Isa 43:1

Gee ya think Gods BOOK of LIFE…might record the NAMES of Every human He formed and gave LIFE to?

Or do you think God has to WAIT AND SEE…like men do?

THOSE NAMES certainly CAN BE BLOTTED out for men WHO Physically DIE, having Rejected God!

The Lambs Book of Life…records the names of human men who CHOSE to surrender their LIFE to the LAMB of God.

Their names can NEVER BE BLOTTED OUT!

Anyone CAN LOSE “rewards”…
Anyone CAN HAVE more “rewards” than an other.

REWARDS….ARE NOT the gift of Salvation.

You should LEARN…about the BOOKS, Blessings, Gifts and Rewards and WHO receives and WHY those things apply.

You jumble everything together then try to argue with your MIND that which are Spiritual things. It’s a fail.

 

[Taken]

You are contradicting yourself. "Born again" means born of water and the spirit in baptism.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Natural Conception reproduces from a mans SEED that fertilizes a females egg…
That is a natural birth of water.

Born again…pertains to the spirit of man.
Born of the Spirit is Gods SEED planted in a mans new (circumcised Heart), which REBIRTHS the man Natural spirit (in his heart) to a spiritual spirit…
and IF you do not KNOW what the spirit of man is…you should….basic knowledge.

 

[Taken]

You make extensive use of metaphors, then you say:



Another off topic point that you know nothing about. Those who are purified by burning are not hell bound, and not yet in heaven. You have no clue WHERE they are, so you make another false dichotomy of "saved and unsaved". Calvin did that repeatedly.

I am not questioning your salvation, I listed numerous verses on Jesus' teaching on losing ones salvation than you arrogantly deny. Worse, you claimed BofL posted no scriptures that clearly disproved OSAS, a blatant lie you are not getting away with.

off topic

You refuse to understand the metaphor of seeds that sprout, but wither and die, but make a long list of metaphors.

Nobody is talking natural flesh. We are talking about the OSAS myth invented by John Calvin whom you say you don't follow. You insist on preaching this falsehood while being ignorant of its origins.

Another off topic escape.

So Judas, called to be an Apostle, was never saved to begin with? Your privatized OSAS contradicts itself.

That OSAS claims the plant can't die. Again, your refute yourself.

Another word salad that has nothing to do with the false teaching of your privatized OSAS. I say "privatized" because you refuse to come to terms with the man who invented it.

You are ill equipped to have a Conversation regarding Spiritual things.

What I say to you is not metaphors, nor wrong, nor contradictory, nor suitable for the ears of a man engulfed in the logic of his Mind, and very close to the same rhetoric others mens minds have taught and preached for years.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

You want to SEE WRONG…look in the mirror!

Why don’t you DO YOUR OWN STUDYING?
BOOKS….plural there are as I told you BOOKS!
Rev 20:12

God KNOWS US BEFORE He formed us in the womb…He knows our name…
Jer 1:5
Isa 43:1

Gee ya think Gods BOOK of LIFE…might record the NAMES of Every human He formed and gave LIFE to?

No one has said that, it's another one of your polemical derailers. To be blotted out means a failure to persevere from what one already received. You don't get it.

Or do you think God has to WAIT AND SEE…like men do?

Another stupid polemical derailer.

THOSE NAMES certainly CAN BE BLOTTED out for men WHO Physically DIE, having Rejected God!

The Lambs Book of Life…records the names of human men who CHOSE to surrender their LIFE to the LAMB of God.

Their names can NEVER BE BLOTTED OUT!

Predestined to glory is not the same as predestined to grace. You have the two .confused.

Anyone CAN LOSE “rewards”….
Anyone CAN HAVE more “rewards” than an other.

REWARDS….ARE NOT the gift of Salvation.

You should LEARN…about the BOOKS, Blessings, Gifts and Rewards and WHO receives and WHY those things apply.

You jumble everything together then try to argue with your MIND that which are Spiritual things. It’s a fail.

Those who persevere to the end of this life will not have their names blotted out. We can be certain of our salvation, but Scripture does not say we can be infallibly certain, UNTIL WE ARE DEAD. Then we can be certain, NOT BEFORE.

2 Tim. 4:8 From now on there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
Protestants often use this verse to prove “once saved, always saved,” even in the face of all Paul wrote about the possibility of losing his salvation (including his). But it is only at end of Saint Paul’s life that he has a moral certitude of salvation. This is after a lifetime of perseverance. As faithful believers in Christ, we indeed have a moral certitude of our salvation, but this is different from being certain of our salvation. We must persevere throughout our lives, and can choose to fall away.

Also, Catholics have more assurance of salvation that those who espouse “once saved, always saved.” This is because the only distinction between a true Christian and a superficial Christian is that the superficial Christian will not persevere to the end – but this is something a Christian cannot know during his life, and this necessarily imposes uncertainty upon him until the end. For Catholics, we know that salvation is ours to lose. For “once saved, always saved” Protestants, they don’t even know whether it is theirs to begin with.

Phil. 1:6 – “I am sure that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”
Protestants also use this verse to prove “once saved, always saved.” But Protestants wouldn’t argue that the whole Philippi church was saved, so this statement must be qualified. In fact, Paul does qualify it in Phil. 2:13 when he warns them to work out their salvation “in fear and trembling,” and in Phil. 3:11-14 when he writes that “if possible,” he may obtain the resurrection, and that he has not yet received the prize (of salvation). Moreover, the verse tells us what God will do (He will give all the grace to bring us to completion), but says nothing about our cooperation with God’s grace.

Phil. 4:3 Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion,[a] help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.–
some Protestants point to this verse about names which are in the book of life. Indeed, because God knows the future, He knows who will persevere (the elect). These are the people whose names are in the book of life. But Jesus in Rev. 3:5 warns us that He can blot our names out of the book of life if we fail to persevere.




Col. 3:23-24 – “work heartily as serving the Lord, not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward.”
This is another verse used to prove “once saved, always saved.” But the verse says our inheritance depends on “working heartily.” It’s not just a matter of accepting Christ as Savior, but working heartily in perseverance. If we persevere, then we will indeed receive the inheritance as our reward.

2 Tim. 1:12 – “But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.”
Another verse proving “once saved, always saved?” Of course not. Paul is writing about the Revelation of faith with which God has entrusted him, and specifically that God will preserve his ability to teach the faith until the end of his life (see v. 13 where Paul then exhorts Timothy to safeguard this deposit of faith as well).

2 Tim. 4:18 – “the Lord will rescue me from every evil and save me for his heavenly kingdom.”
Again, this verse demonstrates God’s faithfulness to us, but God’s ability to save us also depends upon our cooperation. God preserves His elect, but only He knows who are His elect by His foreknowledge.

1 Peter 1:3-5 – Peter says we are born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ and to an inheritance which is imperishable, who by God’s power are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. No Protestant, however, would argue that all of northern Asia Minor (to whom the letter was addressed) was saved. The verse simply sets forth the tautology that God’s elect are saved (by God’s grace and the elect’s perseverance), but only God knows who are His elect.
source

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

You are ill equipped to have a Conversation regarding Spiritual things.

What I say to you is not metaphors, nor wrong, nor contradictory, nor suitable for the ears of a man engulfed in the logic of his Mind, and very close to the same rhetoric others mens minds have taught and preached for years.

I post sources where I get my information. You never do. Not once.
I will post information from fair minded, educated Protestants and manuals whenever I can, you never do.
I get my information from a variety of sources: the catechism, with context and a link to the full page;
-infallible encyclicals (that have more authority than the pope)
-great Doctors of the Church, who never contradict scripture;
- the general consensus of the Early Church Fathers
-writings of great saints who are followed by signs and wonders,
-today's gifted teachers like Scott Hahn who never bashes Protestants
and many other sources.

You just keep regurgitation the lies of John Calvin, who invented OSAS, and don't even know who he is, nor do you care.
All you post is your opinion and a faulty eisegesis of scripture, in an attempt to look authoritive.
Your argumentation is like that of a ten year old, and throw insulting temper tantrums when clearly refuted.
The only teacher you acknowledge is yourself, a form of idolatry.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks GG.

In regards to what Irenaeus wrote: “He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants...
Baptism, thru water and Spirit, is how one is "reborn in God"! When one is baptized their sins are washed away (Acts 22:16). With that said it is possible that Irenaeus is saying that an infant's sin is washed away at baptism.

Here is MORE from Cyprius that, for some reason, you didn't quote: “If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” [A.D. 253].

thanks for making my point Marymog.
see underlined above.
I've underlined what I stated in my previous post.
AN INFANT, HAVING RECENTLY BEEN BORN, HAS DONE NO SIN.
Correct, of course. Each man is only responsible for his own sin.
Now YOU state that the CC teaches only biblical beliefs, so do YOU think a baby is born with sin?

Galatians 8:5
5For each will have to bear his own load.

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

Ezekiel 18:10
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

There's more.
A baby CANNOT HAVE SINNED.
He only bears the scars of Adam's sin...
He is not RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
THIS is what was taught in the early church.
Babies were baptized for the reasons I outlined in my post no. 1665.
The Early Church Fathers agreed to baptize babies for varying reasons

You even said there are more writings, but you have little time. Well GG, those more writings prove your wrong:
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Yes Mary. The above states SRTAINS OF [ORIGINAL] sin....NOT SIN.
Also, please not that ORIGINAL is in parenthesis because the term changed in meaning and was not fully accepted as sin, instead of stain, until Augustine.

Also, please not what else Cyprian ( about 253AD) stated to support my statements:

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Seems to me like Cyprian, which you have quoted, also believed that babies have committed NO SIN, just as the bible teaches.


Now, if you believe, biblically, that a baby has SIN IN HIM when he is born, and you believe the CC teaches only biblical truths,
then you're going to have to show where it states that a baby is born WITH SIN ALREADY ASSIGNED TO HIM.
You won't find this because IT IS NOT TRUE OR BIBLICAL.

Gregory of Nazianz“ Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. [A.D. 388])​

Council of Carthage V“ It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).​

Yes. Thanks again for making my point.
Gregory of Nazianz states ALLOW SIN NO OPPORTUNITY.....
IOW, the baby is born without sin....let's sanctify him and give the baby the opportunity to be helped to not sin.

Soooooo GG, notice how all these things were written BEFORE your alleged evidence of Augustine changing the reason The Church changed its reason for baptizing infants. But like you said, there were more writings and you had little time to present those writings. Why did you not present those writings GG. Probably because those writings prove you wrong?

Mary

You're just too snarky Mary, and it's impossible to have a decent conversation with you.

I do this for the sake of those reading along so they could know church history.
Something YOU do not KNOW.
All you know to do is to protect the CC .... which does not need you're protection and does not deserve any protecting because of all the mistakes it has made.

Now to get back to the topic at hand....
LET'S FIND OUT WHEN ORIGINAL SIN turned into an actual sin on the soul of the baby.
IOW, WHEN was it decided that Adam's sin was imputed to every human being born.
I sure hope you know what IMPUTED means.

AUGUSTINE INVENTED the idea.
Learn some history.
The following might help you to learn history OUTSIDE of the CC, which is going to give ITS version of everything.
Not good. History is history.

BTW, I DO hope you know that John Calvin used Augustine's theories to expand CALVINISM?
Original sin is the basis for calvinistic theology.

Augustine believed that even sex IN A MARRIAGE was sin.
He was a gnostic that brought his ideas to the CC.
This was pivotal in his teaching on original sin....
which in Catholicism is called concupiscense: The lust of man toward sexuality.
I hope you now that Augustine wanted to marry a 10 years girl after he left his wife.

He is a horror to the CC and drove it into false teachings which, to this day, it cannot overcome.

For anyone interested, I will put more on here later on if someone would like
to go further into this study --- which I did a few years ago and learned what you seem not to know
because you will not take your nose out of the teachings of the CC.

HISTORY proves you wrong Mary.
Your CC does not make history.
History STANDS ON ITS OWN.

 

[Taken]

I post sources where I get my information. You never do. Not once.

False… revealed many times.
My teacher and source is the Lord God…

I will post information from fair minded, educated Protestants and manuals whenever I can, you never do.
I get my information from a variety of sources: the catechism, with context and a link to the full page;
-infallible encyclicals (that have more authority than the pope)
-great Doctors of the Church, who never contradict scripture;
- the general consensus of the Early Church Fathers
-writings of great saints who are followed by signs and wonders,
-today's gifted teachers like Scott Hahn who never bashes Protestants
and many other sources.

I’m sure you do rely on other men minds to influence your beliefs.

You just keep regurgitation the lies of John Calvin, who invented OSAS, and don't even know who he is, nor do you care.

LOL…

The Lord God offers Guaranteed eternal Life with Him…

Anyone who learns of the offering and accepts the offering….I would NOT call the “invention of any human man!!”

All you post is your opinion

Yep…based on the ONLY source that matters.

Unlike you…who lists your sources as human men.

The only teacher you acknowledge is yourself, a form of idolatry.

To prevent yourself from speaking LIES…and making False accusations you should do your homework…

Anyone can look up my posts word for word…such as:

God is my Holy Heavenly Father, and giver to me of His Understanding.
Jesus is my internal Holy Teacher of Gods Truth.
Christ is my internal Holy Power.
Abraham is my Appointed Earthly Father.

 

[Taken]

No one has said that, it's another one of polemical derailers.

It is no mystery why you can NOT speak from the stand point of spiritual understanding….

It is mysterious why you fail to comprehend ME ASKING a QUESTION…is NOT ME CLAIMING another MADE a STATEMENT!

When are you going to step off your finger pointing, false accusing soapbox of personal attacks against others you have not the capability to understand…

AND INSTEAD…
Declare what YOU DO Stand for…and WHY…

Is your soul saved?
If so How many times did it take?
If your soul is not saved…WHY not?

Is your spirit quickened?
If so, how old were you?
If so, how did your spirit become quickened?
If so, can your spirit become unquickened?
If so, how and why can that happen?

These questions only require a direct simple answer…but I expect you are not capable of giving a simple direct answer…

 

[Taken]

Those who persevere to the end of this life will not have their names blotted out.

Jude Thaddeus “quote”…
“THOSE who persevere to the end of this life will not have their names blotted out”….

IS THAT ^^ the “position YOU are IN”…
Ie….”YOUR present STANDING”?

We can be certain of our salvation, but Scripture does not say we can be infallibly certain, UNTIL WE ARE DEAD. Then we can be certain, NOT BEFORE.

IS THAT ^^ the “position YOU are IN”…
Ie….”YOUR present STANDING” THAT APPLIES to YOU?
Waiting for physical DEATH?

You are CERTAIN, but NOT CERTAIN…
(Pretty confident that is an oxymoron…and Scripturally that is not called a CERTAINTY, but rather….HOPE.}

 

[Marymog]

thanks for making my point Marymog.
see underlined above.
I've underlined what I stated in my previous post.
AN INFANT, HAVING RECENTLY BEEN BORN, HAS DONE NO SIN.
Correct, of course. Each man is only responsible for his own sin.
Now YOU state that the CC teaches only biblical beliefs, so do YOU think a baby is born with sin?

Galatians 8:5
5For each will have to bear his own load.

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

Ezekiel 18:10
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

There's more.
A baby CANNOT HAVE SINNED.
He only bears the scars of Adam's sin...
He is not RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
THIS is what was taught in the early church.
Babies were baptized for the reasons I outlined in my post no. 1665.
The Early Church Fathers agreed to baptize babies for varying reasons



Yes Mary. The above states SRTAINS OF [ORIGINAL] sin....NOT SIN.
Also, please not that ORIGINAL is in parenthesis because the term changed in meaning and was not fully accepted as sin, instead of stain, until Augustine.

Also, please not what else Cyprian ( about 253AD) stated to support my statements:

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Seems to me like Cyprian, which you have quoted, also believed that babies have committed NO SIN, just as the bible teaches.


Now, if you believe, biblically, that a baby has SIN IN HIM when he is born, and you believe the CC teaches only biblical truths,
then you're going to have to show where it states that a baby is born WITH SIN ALREADY ASSIGNED TO HIM.
You won't find this because IT IS NOT TRUE OR BIBLICAL.




Yes. Thanks again for making my point.
Gregory of Nazianz states ALLOW SIN NO OPPORTUNITY.....
IOW, the baby is born without sin....let's sanctify him and give the baby the opportunity to be helped to not sin.



You're just too snarky Mary, and it's impossible to have a decent conversation with you.

I do this for the sake of those reading along so they could know church history.
Something YOU do not KNOW.
All you know to do is to protect the CC .... which does not need you're protection and does not deserve any protecting because of all the mistakes it has made.

Now to get back to the topic at hand....
LET'S FIND OUT WHEN ORIGINAL SIN turned into an actual sin on the soul of the baby.
IOW, WHEN was it decided that Adam's sin was imputed to every human being born.
I sure hope you know what IMPUTED means.

AUGUSTINE INVENTED the idea.
Learn some history.
The following might help you to learn history OUTSIDE of the CC, which is going to give ITS version of everything.
Not good. History is history.

BTW, I DO hope you know that John Calvin used Augustine's theories to expand CALVINISM?
Original sin is the basis for calvinistic theology.

Augustine believed that even sex IN A MARRIAGE was sin.
He was a gnostic that brought his ideas to the CC.
This was pivotal in his teaching on original sin....
which in Catholicism is called concupiscense: The lust of man toward sexuality.
I hope you now that Augustine wanted to marry a 10 years girl after he left his wife.

He is a horror to the CC and drove it into false teachings which, to this day, it cannot overcome.

For anyone interested, I will put more on here later on if someone would like
to go further into this study --- which I did a few years ago and learned what you seem not to know
because you will not take your nose out of the teachings of the CC.

HISTORY proves you wrong Mary.
Your CC does not make history.
History STANDS ON ITS OWN.

Ummmm.....You have me sooooo confused right now.

Your original point was that The Church changed the reason for baptizing infants AFTER Augustine. I proved you wrong.

NOW you want to talk about original sin.

I just can't keep up with you GG....

I will get back with you. Got some things to do.....

 

[Marymog]

Now, if you believe, biblically, that a baby has SIN IN HIM when he is born, and you believe the CC teaches only biblical truths,
then you're going to have to show where it states that a baby is born WITH SIN ALREADY ASSIGNED TO HIM.
You won't find this because IT IS NOT TRUE OR BIBLICAL.

Romans 5:12-19

 

[GodsGrace]

Ummmm.....You have me sooooo confused right now.

Your original point was that The Church changed the reason for baptizing infants AFTER Augustine. I proved you wrong.

NOW you want to talk about original sin.

I just can't keep up with you GG....

I will get back with you. Got some things to do.....

New ideas are difficult to digest.

For those reading along that MIGHT BE INTERESTED in why the early church baptized infants before Augustine
and why it felt babies MUST BE baptized after Augustine because they would otherwise go straight to hell,,

I feel I've posted enough.
It's a good beginning.

If I can find some more videos that are easy to watch and explain well,
I will, as promised, be posting them tomorrow.

You see Mary, you didn't reply to my post.
Being that you believe the CC teaches ONLY biblical beliefs...
WHY do you think it USED TO teach that babies MUST BE BAPTIZED, After Augustine (before it was for different reasons)?

I showed you, biblically, why babies have no sin and why they are not responsible for Adam's sin.
We are each responsible only for our own sin.
Please read my post again, I did post several verses of scripture that proves this.

So....

IF the CC used to teach that babies MUST BE BAPTIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE or they'd go straight to hell,
it means that SOMETHING CHANGED AFTER Augustine took, let's say, charge of the church and declared that
babies are IMPUTED the sin of Adam.

If you read this slow....you MIGHT understand it.

So,,,Again
If we are responsible ONLY FOR OUR OWN SINS, as I proved using scripture....
WHY would babies need to be baptized? (according to you and/or the CC).

 

[GodsGrace]

Romans 5:12-19

Romans 5:12
12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Are you serious?
What does the above have to do with babies being baptized?

DEATH.....both physical and spiritual entered into the world because of Adam's sin.
Because Adam was the Federal Head of the human race.
So through him, death entered into the world through sin....HIS SIN.

YOU didn't commit the first sin.
I didn't commit the first sin.

We suffer from the EFFECTS of Adam's sin.
We are NOT held PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for it.
We are NOT IMPUTED with Adam's sin.

The SIN ENTERED the world.....and it effected everything....
It even affected nature.
Do you blame nature for having SINNED and this is why it is suffering?
Of course not.
Augustine changed having the AFFECT of what we might call original sin...
to
BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

The difference is HUGE.


Romans 8:19-22
18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ummmm.....You have me sooooo confused right now.

Your original point was that The Church changed the reason for baptizing infants AFTER Augustine. I proved you wrong.

NOW you want to talk about original sin.

I just can't keep up with you GG....

I will get back with you. Got some things to do.....

You're cute Mary.
Always stating that you proved me wrong when you don't even know the HISTORY of your church and your Early Church Fathers.

Amazing.

 

[Marymog]

You're cute Mary.
Always stating that you proved me wrong when you don't even know the HISTORY of your church and your Early Church Fathers.

Amazing.

Amazing.

I quoted the ECF's that proved your theory wrong but you still can't accept it.

 

[Marymog]

Romans 5:12
12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Are you serious?
What does the above have to do with babies being baptized?

As the ECF's stated The Church baptized babies to wash away their (original) sin.

Previously you said, "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." NOW you don't trust them? Who can we trust GG? Your theory....

 

[Marymog]

New ideas are difficult to digest.

I agree. You came up with a new idea that was opposite of what Scripture and the ECF's taught.

 

[Marymog]

For those reading along that MIGHT BE INTERESTED in why the early church baptized infants before Augustine
and why it felt babies MUST BE baptized after Augustine because they would otherwise go straight to hell,,

For all those that are interested the early church baptized babies because “He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; (Irenaeus). “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. (Hippolytus). “Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. (Origen). If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (Cyprian). “Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. (Gregory)


As I have already proven by quoting the ECF's COMPLETLY, instead of cherry picking, The Church baptized babies to wash away original sin AND bring them into the Christian faith. The early church baptized ALL in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because "baptism now saves you" and "wash(es) away your sin"....just like they were instructed to do.

I agree with the posting of THIS GodsGrace: 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.

I don't agree with the posting of the GodsGrace that doesn't agree with the teachings of the Apostles and ECF's.

Respectfully,

Mary