women priests excommunicated/thoughts?

DHK,

Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to tell a duck from a goose.

When someone is called to have their household baptized....why would you think that only applies to the adults of the house?


LaRae

 

Infant baptism isn't taught in the Bible, neither is your beloved covenantal theology

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Lu 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

What was that you were saying? No covenantal theology in the Scriptures?

Boy!!! WHAT Bible are you reading?

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

 

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

First, there were two grandparents, the jailor and his wife, and their three children: two boys, aged 21 and 19, and one daughter, 17. There were also some servants--all adults. We can verify this in the same way Catholics verify that there were infants. And yet we have more proof than they.

Verse 34 says they rejoiced and believed in God with all his house. Now if that included the infants needing changing, nursing, and often colicky, they wouldn't be rejoicing: neither would they be believing--a little bit of an impossibilty. As usual Catholics take Scripture out of its context and try to read into it something that isn't there.
DHK

 

DHK,

Hmmm what Bible are you using?

Acts 33

At the same hour of night he took them and washed their wounds then he and his ENTIRE family were baptized without delay......

Perhaps your version has been edited to read differently.

LaRae

 

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

"That captures very accurately what the bread symbolizes to us. Following that, our Lord took the cup. The wine of the cup symbolizes his blood which he said is the blood of the New Covenant, the new arrangement for living that God has made, by which the old life is ended. That is what blood always means: Blood is the end of a life, and the old life in which we were dependent upon ourselves, and lived for ourselves, and wanted only to be the center of attention is over. That is what the cup means. We agree to that; we are no longer to live for ourselves." (Ray Steadman)

The account is given in all three of the synoptic gospels. Here is the one in Mark.
Mark 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

"This obviously is symbolism. Our Lord is teaching again by means of symbols, but the symbols are very significant. He took the bread, and said, "This is my body," and he broke the bread, symbolizing how his body would be broken. And he took the cup, and said, "This is the blood of the new covenant," i.e., the new agreement that God makes with men by faith, and not by works; by believing, and not by performance. That is the New Covenant. Then he reminded them that this was the end, that he would never drink of the cup again until he drank it new in the fulfillment of the kingdom of God."
(Ray Steadman)

The covenant will not be fulfilled until Jesus comes again and sets up His Kingdom with the Israelites. We, now receive some blessings because of His covenant with Israel, but it still remains primarily with Israel, not us.
DHK

 

You are missing the point LaRae. The "entire" family "believed." That in itself excludes infants. An infant cannot believe. Do not read into Scripture that which is not there.
DHK

 

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

"That captures very accurately what the bread symbolizes to us. Following that, our Lord took the cup. The wine of the cup symbolizes his blood which he said is the blood of the New Covenant, the new arrangement for living that God has made, by which the old life is ended. That is what blood always means: Blood is the end of a life, and the old life in which we were dependent upon ourselves, and lived for ourselves, and wanted only to be the center of attention is over. That is what the cup means. We agree to that; we are no longer to live for ourselves." (Ray Steadman)

What a load of garbage. Steadman has no more understanding of the English language than you do. Jesus DID NOT say that the cup was symbolic. What do you not understand about "this IS"? The cup IS the New Covenant in His Blood.

Furthermore, he says "this is what blood always means".

Sheeeeesh. And YOU GUYS criticize Catholics for supposedly not using the Bible and then we get THIS. Get real!!

Le 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Scripture says that the blood is the life of the flesh. When we are given the Blood of Christ, we are given His very life!! That is why in John 6:53 Jesus would say that those who eat His Flesh and dring His Blood HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. They are partaking of divine life by partaking of divine Blood. That is the essence of what a covenant is -- life being given to life. Two becoming "one flesh". Marriage. (You still ain't got a clue, do you?)

That is about the sorriest and most unbiblical explanation I have seen yet. Steadman needs to stop trafficking in fantasy and word twisting and you need to stop listening to him.

And as for the idea that the covenantal kingdom will not be fulfilled until Jesus returns....

guess what....

He already DID.

If He didn't, then you are still in your sins because the sacrifice of YOM KIPPUR is not accepted until the high priest comes back from inside the holiest of all. Jesus went up from the apostles, went into the "temple made without hands", offered YOM KIPPUR in His own Blood, and then returned in AD 70. If He didn't...like I said....the sacrifice is still unaccepted by God.

And like I also said....you STILL don't understand the covenant and how it works or you would not make such statements as you did above. They break every rule of covenantalism there is.

Oh, and stop being a shill for the Zionists. They killed Christ and want nothing to do with Him now. What's with you defending them anyway?

 

DHK,

Why do you think and infant can't believe? Do you not think it odd that Jesus made such a point to include children (in scripture) if they can't believe?

I seem to remember a scripture about having to be as a child to come to Him.

LaRae

 

BTW --

A thought (just occurred to me)

If children are incapable of beleiving, how's come John the Baptist jumped in his mommy's womb when he heard the greeting of the Blessed Virgin?

I think there's more that happens than you folks reckon on.

Brother Ed

 

As for the Lord's Supper, Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me". You remember things from the past, not things which are taking place. If you claim that the sacrifice of Christ is being reenacted (minus the bloodiness) during the mass, you are saying that it is currently happening and thus you cannot be doing it in remembrance simply because you claim that it is presently happening and is not something in the past which you are remembering.

"Why do you think and infant can't believe? Do you not think it odd that Jesus made such a point to include children (in scripture) if they can't believe?"

LaRae, don't twist what DHK said. Notice you mention that he said infants cannot believe and then you switch to children. Infants cannot believe, children can.

John the Baptist did not leap for joy on his own, rather he was moved to do so by the Holy Spirit. I never heard of any infant leaping for joy after having a priest sprinkle some water on his or her head.

 

Dual,

Do you really think there is that much difference from an infant to a small child? Child and infant can be used interchangibly. I wasn't switching anything.

LaRae

 

I have no memory (self-awareness) of when I was an infant (ie. baby) but I do have some memories of when I was a small child (ie. todler). There is a difference and the difference is that the infant has no conscious idea of what is going on but the small child does. Also notice that you have once again "switched something", in your previous post you said "child" and now you are saying "small child" trying to make it closer to an "infant" which was the original word that DHK used.

 

Dual,

There you go with the straw man thing again. Common sense should tell you when I say infant/child I am talking about someone that (according to non-Catholics) is under the age of "reason" .....referring to the various denominations that don't believe a child can be saved until a certain age or participate in baptism until a certain age.

I don't see how I can make it any clearer.

Since you are so eager to engage me in discussion why don't you finish our other unfinished conversation(s) about works and papal infallibility?

LaRae

 

Yet again you avoid the point, DHK was refering to infants.

 

Dual,

I don't see how you think I am avoiding the point. Perhaps you care to explain what you think I am avoiding.

Also, are you avoiding the other items I referenced?

LaRae

 

I just pointed out what you were avoiding. As for the previous discusion, DHK dealt with that, baptism is a work even if you insist on pretending that it isn't. It doesn't stop there however, because the Catholic church also teaches that works maintain salvation, for example the Council of Trent and the modern Catechism both say that you have to go to mass at least once a year (the Baltimore Catechism suggests that it must be done more frequently however) or you will be "dead again" (as opposed to born again).

 

LaRae: You are jumping around with this baby baptism part. Now you say a child who hasn't reached the age of accountability. We all were talking about babies, period. Even the baby in the womb was mentioned by Brother Ed, so stay with babies, if you don't mind.

Can you remember anything that happened when you was a "BABY"? Most, if not all, would have to say no to this. So, if the answer is no, then how in the world is a baby supposed to know what the meaning of salvation by the grace of Jesus means BEFORE or AFTER being baptised? That is the point that has been made over and over, that a baby DOESN'T know and therefore baby baptism bears no fruit. Zippo...none!!

Catholics can't get past the non-existance of a covenant with God. Baptism is not a covenant with Jesus. Jesus lived as a Jew, believe it or not. He followed Jewish traditions. Salvation by the grace of Jesus, for the main part of the NT, was AFTER His death. What do you think John 3:16 means? This in no way refers to a covenant or baptism. It is a very simple statement about how we can be saved although, again, a baby doesn't know this. In fact, if y'all don't know, how can a baby? There is no covenant to break. The lost are those who have never accepted Christ as their savior. YES, all should strive to be like Jesus but scripture says this is IMPOSSIBLE to attain. All have and will, fall short of the glory of God. That includes you, me and all others who are Christians....even baptised babies. By the way, look up the definition of baptise.......not sprinkle with water, but to make WHOLLY WET. Where did y'all get the sprinkle from?

God Bless.............Alex

[ August 11, 2002, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]

 

Hi Alex,

This is why I support infant baptism as a Christian:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

God bless,

Carson

 

Thought I would do all a favor and paste it:

Infant Baptism
Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, one of the elect, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "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" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."



Christ Calls All to Baptism

Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of having a right to his kingdom. He asserted such a right even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe). The Greek word brephe means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?



In Place of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.



Were Only Adults Baptized?

Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.



Specific Biblical References?

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.



Catholics From the First

The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).





No Cry of "Invention!"

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

God Bless............Alex

 

If those are your reasons, Carson, they are pretty lame.
DHK