WHERE DO CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ORIGINATE? BAPTISM

[GodsGrace]

Though I agree with that idea, few others do,
Do you have a scripture for that idea?
The only scripture I could find with the words believe and obey in it was Rom 10:6..."But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?"

(That should be enough to get the "anti-legalists" interested).
(And the "faith alone" folks too!)

Actually the word BELIEVE in Greek has the concept of OBEY in it.
If one does not obey, he does not believe.
Will see if I can find something quick...

To Believe means to Obey John 3:16

An excerpt from John 3:16:Obeying Unto Christ Should Save? Introduction When the English translations of the Greek New Tes- tament were made in the 1526-1611 period, the “difficult Greek in which …

exodus2thekingdom.wordpress.com

 

[Hopeful]

There is a complicated argument connected with pistou and apeitheo.
And John 3:36 is translated:
KJV He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
RSV He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

I'll have to put that verse in my file for living without sinning.
Thanks.

 

[Hopeful]

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
John 3:36 NKJV


He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” John 3:36 NASB

Thanks.

 

[Hopeful]

Must disagree.
IF baptism is how we become a member of the Christian community, FOLLOWED by your verse,
then every single Catholic is saved.
If this is not so, please explain why.

It is not true, because they fail to consider repentance from sin with any importance.

Again, this is also true only if the baptized is already a believer.
I understand why infants were baptized at the beginnings of the church.
I don't believe this functions well anymore.
Because a baby has been baptized does not mean that he will grow up to either be a believer,
or a good person. I can attest to this personally.
I believe infant baptism gives a false sense of security -
Same reply as last.

Until someone commits a sin, and is sorry for it, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is just a bath.
That is all a baby is getting.

 

[Hopeful]

Doesn't apply at all.

Are catholic baby baptisms free?

 

[Mungo]

Until someone commits a sin, and is sorry for it, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is just a bath.
That is all a baby is getting.

Untrue.

 

[GodsGrace]

Are catholic baby baptisms free?

Of course.

 

[Hopeful]

Untrue.

Not untrue.
What sin could a baby repent of, much less commit?
Baptism without repentance is a waste of time and money.

 

[Hopeful]

Of course.

I don't believe it.
The catholics don't do anything for free.
A priest came to my dad's wake, and spoke a few words.
At the burial service the next day, he let it be known that we had been expected to pay for that.
After many years of tithing to them, they wanted more.
HAH !

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't believe it.
The catholics don't do anything for free.
A priest came to my dad's wake, and spoke a few words.
At the burial service the next day, he let it be known that we had been expected to pay for that.
After many years of tithing to them, they wanted more.
HAH !

It's a priest's duty to assist parishioners in obtaining all sacraments.
One can give a gift to the priest IF they so desire.
If I were asked for payment, I'd give nothing.

 

[GodsGrace]

Not untrue.
What sin could a baby repent of, much less commit?
Baptism without repentance is a waste of time and money.

Why did the early Christians baptize their infants?

 

[Hopeful]

Why did the early Christians baptize their infants?

They didn't.
A false church instituted it.

 

[Mungo]

They didn't.
A false church instituted it.

There are good reasons to baptise babies and infants.

There is also evidence that babies were baptised from the very beginning.

Moreover there is scriptural support for such a practice. I quote from an Orthodox source.
The first time the Gospel was ever proclaimed was on the day of Pentecost by the Apostle Peter. In his Spirit-inspired sermon he made it clear that the blessing and promise of salvation was not just for adults, but for children as well.

"And Peter said to them, 'Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself " (Acts 2:38,39).

And
Although this is only indirect Scriptural evidence, the fact that the Bible mentions that entire "households" were baptized does make it seem probable that children and infants were included. "Now I did baptize the household of Stephanas . . . " (1 Corinthians 1:16) (An angel spoke to Cornelius saying) "Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is called Peter, brought here; and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, and all your household " (Later, when Peter arrived at (Cornelius' household) "... he ordered them to be baptized."(Acts 11:13b, 14; Acts 10:48a) "And when she (Lydia of Thyatira) and her household had been baptized . . . " (Acts 16:15a) "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household . . . and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. " Acts 16:31, 33b) We know that the Greek word oikos, translated "house" or "household," has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek,or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for "house" carries the sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of the original Hebrew manuscripts (completed in 250 B.C.) uses this word when translating the Hebrew word meaning the complete family (men, women, children, infants). Similarly, we know that the phrase "he and his house" refers to the total family; the Old Testament use of this phrase clearly demonstrates this by specifically mentioning the presence of children and infants at times.

You can read the whole article here

 

[GodsGrace]

They didn't.
A false church instituted it.

Which false church?
The one in Acts when we're told an entire household was baptized?

There was only one church after Jesus returned to His home.
The early Christians died to preserve that church.
It seems to me that we all should study church history.
If you have, then could you please tell me, once and for all, which CHURCH, was the original church.

And please don't reply the one in Acts since, as I've stated many times, HISTORY did CONTINUE even after Acts and Revelation were finished being written. In fact, the church was born even before Revelation was written. This can be shown by the fact that John was very worried about gnosticism entering the church. The original church.

HIPPOLYTUS​

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

ORIGEN​

“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” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE​

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 58:2 [A.D. 253]).
“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., 58:5).

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM​

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).



Do you even bother to read all that is posted?
The Early Theologians knew much more than we know today.
Information was passed down from one generation to the next.

 

[Walpole]

Christianity 101 here...

We baptize our children because man is born with a deprivation: the lack of grace due to the fall of Adam. Baptism gives man "newness of life." (Romans 6:4) For thus he must be born again.

It is thus the responsibility of Christian parents to bring up their children in the faith. The faith of the Church is the child's birthright, which is claimed for them by their Christian parents. Do you force your children to live outside of your house until they are old enough to profess membership in your household? I would hope not. So too parents do not exclude their children from the household of God.


God does not put an age restriction on the Kingdom of God...

“But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.’” (Mt. 19:14)

 

[Hopeful]

There are good reasons to baptise babies and infants.

No, there are not.
They can't confess and repent of sin, neither can they commit sin to repent of? (1 John 1:9)
What sins are being washed away by water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins? (Acts 2:38)
Baptism must be a choice for it to actually kill the old man of sin and allow the new man to be raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4-6)

There is also evidence that babies were baptised from the very beginning.
Moreover there is scriptural support for such a practice. I quote from an Orthodox source.
The first time the Gospel was ever proclaimed was on the day of Pentecost by the Apostle Peter. In his Spirit-inspired sermon he made it clear that the blessing and promise of salvation was not just for adults, but for children as well.
"And Peter said to them, 'Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself " (Acts 2:38,39).

The "promise" was to all men world wide, present and future.
But there are conditions babies and children cannot meet.

And
Although this is only indirect Scriptural evidence, the fact that the Bible mentions that entire "households" were baptized does make it seem probable that children and infants were included. "Now I did baptize the household of Stephanas . . . " (1 Corinthians 1:16) (An angel spoke to Cornelius saying) "Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is called Peter, brought here; and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, and all your household " (Later, when Peter arrived at (Cornelius' household) "... he ordered them to be baptized."(Acts 11:13b, 14; Acts 10:48a) "And when she (Lydia of Thyatira) and her household had been baptized . . . " (Acts 16:15a) "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household . . . and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. " Acts 16:31, 33b) We know that the Greek word oikos, translated "house" or "household," has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek,or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for "house" carries the sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of the original Hebrew manuscripts (completed in 250 B.C.) uses this word when translating the Hebrew word meaning the complete family (men, women, children, infants). Similarly, we know that the phrase "he and his house" refers to the total family; the Old Testament use of this phrase clearly demonstrates this by specifically mentioning the presence of children and infants at times.

You follow a doctrine based on suppositions.
I am not willing to discard or twist scripture in order to recruite children into a false teachings mill.

You can read the whole article here

I will be content to follow what is written in the bible.

 

[Hopeful]

Which false church?
The one in Acts when we're told an entire household was baptized?

The false "churches" started coming out of the woodwork as soon as Christ was resurrected.
Any "church" that differs from those written of in the bible are false.
Any teaching that is not biblical is not from God.

There was only one church after Jesus returned to His home.
The early Christians died to preserve that church.
It seems to me that we all should study church history.
If you have, then could you please tell me, once and for all, which CHURCH, was the original church.

It was titled "the church by Christ Jesus", in Eph 3:21.

And please don't reply the one in Acts since, as I've stated many times, HISTORY did CONTINUE even after Acts and Revelation were finished being written. In fact, the church was born even before Revelation was written. This can be shown by the fact that John was very worried about gnosticism entering the church. The original church.

The original church is alive and well.
And it lives according to scripture.

HIPPOLYTUS​

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

So much for free will.
That is called forced religion.

ORIGEN​

“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” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Heresy.
What sin can a baby commit?

CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE​

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration,

Straight out of the Judaizer's handbook.

and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 58:2 [A.D. 253]).

Men must be cognizant of their past sins in order to repent of them. (1 John 1:9)
How can babies feel remorse for sin? (2 Cor 7:10)

“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., 58:5).

Frankly, it is a waste of the Lord's blood to use it to wash sins from the sinless.

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM​

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

It seems this guy has yet to read a bible.
Instead of obeying what had been written by the apostles, they "enumerated" their own interpretations based on a strawman.
That being that babies needed baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Do you even bother to read all that is posted?
The Early Theologians knew much more than we know today.
Information was passed down from one generation to the next.

Misinformation was passed down too.
A little leaven leaventh the whole lump.

Why do you defend baptism without repentance from sin?

 

[Mungo]

No, there are not.
They can't confess and repent of sin, neither can they commit sin to repent of? (1 John 1:9)
What sins are being washed away by water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins? (Acts 2:38)

They have no personal sins to repent of so your point is irrelevant.

Baptism must be a choice for it to actually kill the old man of sin and allow the new man to be raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4-6)

Just like adults they need to be move from being a child of Adam to being an adopted child of God.

According Paul in the letter to the Romans chap 5
12. "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned"

Who was this one man?
Answer - Adam.

Then verse 15-19 spell out the consequences for us all.
15. For if many died through one man's trespass………
16. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, ………….
17. If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, …………
18. Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men,………
19. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,……

Adam's sin affected all mankind; it affected our nature and brought death into the world and we became separated from God and subject to condemnation.

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (1Cor 15:22).

When we are born we are "in Adam". We need to be "in Christ" because "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Rom 8:1)

Paul says in Eph 2:3 "we [Christians] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."
But in Gal 3:25 he says "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God"
When we are "in Adam" we are "children of wrath" but when we are "in Christ" we are children of God.

That movement from being "in Adam", subject to death, subject to condemnation, being "children of wrath", to being "in Christ", made alive, brought out of condemnation, being children of God, is effected by baptism.

The choice for that is made by the parents.

The "promise" was to all men world wide, present and future.
But there are conditions babies and children cannot meet.

The conditions that are necessary are met by the parents.

You follow a doctrine based on suppositions.
I am not willing to discard or twist scripture in order to recruite children into a false teachings mill.

I'm not making suppositions or twisting scripture.
I've now given you the scripture.
To summarise
We are born "in Adam" but to have life we must be "born again", renewed, born by the Spirit in baptism (John 3:5, Ti 3:5).

When we are baptised we "put on" Christ (Gal 3:27); we become part of the body of Christ, and therefore children of God (1Cor 12:13); we become part of a new creation in Christ (2Cor 5:17); we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)

Jesus said "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."(Jn 3:5) and yet he also says "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 19:14)

All this is good and necessary for adults. All this is equally good and necessary for children.

As the Bible says "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." (Acts 2:39).

I will be content to follow what is written in the bible.

But you have no scripture that bears on the matter.

 

[Mungo]

The false "churches" started coming out of the woodwork as soon as Christ was resurrected.
Any "church" that differs from those written of in the bible are false.
Any teaching that is not biblical is not from God.

I don't normally interject in another' discussion but these are just your personal and fallible opinions with no evidence provided.
No Catholic doctrine (properly understood) contradicts scripture (properly interpreted).

 

[Hopeful]

They have no personal sins to repent of so your point is irrelevant.

Like baptizing sinless babies?

Just like adults they need to be move from being a child of Adam to being an adopted child of God.

As soon as they realize they are a child of Adam and feel the real remorse necessary for their repentance to be permanent, then they can confess and be water baptized..

According Paul in the letter to the Romans chap 5
12. "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned"
Who was this one man?
Answer - Adam.
Then verse 15-19 spell out the consequences for us all.
15. For if many died through one man's trespass………
16. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, ………….
17. If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, …………
18. Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men,………
19. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,……

Yep, through Adam came death.
But we are all responsible for our own sins.
Children will not be condemned for the sins of their fathers.

Adam's sin affected all mankind; it affected our nature and brought death into the world and we became separated from God and subject to condemnation.
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (1Cor 15:22).
When we are born we are "in Adam". We need to be "in Christ" because "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Rom 8:1)
Paul says in Eph 2:3 "we [Christians] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."
But in Gal 3:25 he says "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God"
When we are "in Adam" we are "children of wrath" but when we are "in Christ" we are children of God.

Until a child commits a sin, he is not a "child of wrath".

That movement from being "in Adam", subject to death, subject to condemnation, being "children of wrath", to being "in Christ", made alive, brought out of condemnation, being children of God, is effected by baptism.

If the baptized has no sin to confess and be washed of, the baptism is a waste of time.
A man must know what he is dying for.
Baptism is the death and burial of the old man, with Christ.
If there was no deed to die for, what use is there in the death?

The choice for that is made by the parents.

Then it doesn't count.
The parents cannot repent of sin for their child.

The conditions that are necessary are met by the parents.

That is a false doctrine.

I'm not making suppositions or twisting scripture.
I've now given you the scripture.
To summarise
We are born "in Adam" but to have life we must be "born again", renewed, born by the Spirit in baptism (John 3:5, Ti 3:5).
When we are baptised we "put on" Christ (Gal 3:27); we become part of the body of Christ, and therefore children of God (1Cor 12:13); we become part of a new creation in Christ (2Cor 5:17); we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)
Jesus said "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."(Jn 3:5) and yet he also says "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 19:14)
All this is good and necessary for adults. All this is equally good and necessary for children.
As the Bible says "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." (Acts 2:39).
But you have no scripture that bears on the matter.

You are just ignoring the scriptures I posted earlier.
Babies are born without sin.
Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission of sin.
Your baby baptizing doctrine condemns all the aborted kids.