Hard Question for Catholics

[lori4dogs]

DHK said: "It seems that their infant baptism is not much different than a Baptist dedication after all."

"The sovereign God can even work faith in an infant (Psalm 22:9, "You made me trust in you even at my mother's breast")!"

Does that sound like "Baptist baby dedication" to you? Yet it comes right off the Orthodox Presbyterian website. It is not unlike the Lutheran position (from LCMS website):

IV - Infants Can Believe

The most frequent objection to infant baptism is that babies cannot believe. They do not, says the objection, have the intellect necessary to repent and believe in Jesus.

If this is your opinion, Jesus disagrees with you. Luke 18 tells us that certain parents were bringing infants (Greek - brephe) to Jesus, that He might bless them. The disciples rebuked those who brought the babies. Jesus' response is well known: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it" (Luke 18:15-17). Some have objected that it is "little children" and not infants that Jesus speaks of here. Yet the very little children that the disciples were forbidding were infants. The infants are the focus of the passage. Clearly on this occasion Jesus had babies in mind when He said what He did!

Does this passage speak of infant baptism? No, not directly. It does show that Jesus did not raise the objection that so many do today about babies not being able to believe. According to Jesus, these babies had what it took to be members of the kingdom of God, feeble intellect and all! "Do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God."

Now Jesus does not contradict Himself. The central message of His ministry (the Gospel) was that there was only way to enter God's kingdom. There was only one way to be saved. "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Repeatedly Christ taught that faith in Him was the one way to become a member of God's kingdom (cf. John 3:16-18). Therefore, when He says about babies, "for of such is the kingdom of God," He is telling us that babies can believe (for how else could they enter the kingdom?!).

So if Jesus maintained that babies can believe (though their faith is very simple), who are we to deny it? And who are we to deny baptism to those who can believe? For those still stumbling over infant faith, remember: it is purely by God's grace that any person, adult or child, can believe. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit as much for the adult as for the child (see John 6:44; 1 Cor. 12:3; Eph. 2:1-4). When the adult believes in Christ it is only because the Holy Spirit, working through the Gospel, has worked the miracle of faith in his heart. So with the infant. If faith, then, is always a miracle, why can we not believe that God would work such miraculous faith in a baby?

DHK, you and others on this board are so quick to make charges of heresy against the RCC when you have plenty of other denoninations to direct your venom towards.

 

[lori4dogs]

Funny how the focus has been shifted from Catholicism to a minor sect of Presbyterians that, although they "baptize" infants, do not believe that infant baptize has diddly squat to do with salvation.

Maybe you should re-read their web-page

 

[lori4dogs]

Funny how the focus has been shifted from Catholicism to a minor sect of Presbyterians that, although they "baptize" infants, do not believe that infant baptize has diddly squat to do with salvation.

" . . . you can see that this objection is mistaken because it proves too much. The fundamental argument is that because infants cannot believe, they cannot be baptized. However, if you apply this same logic to the rest of the verse, you are forced to conclude that because infants cannot believe they cannot be saved either. This objection not only keeps infants from baptism, it keeps them from heaven.

Now if it doesn't have 'diddly squat' to do with salvation, why do the Presbyterians claim that not baptizing babies would 'keep them from heaven'?
Did you really read the web-page or are you just parroting DHK like you usually do?

 

[DHK]

DHK said: "It seems that their infant baptism is not much different than a Baptist dedication after all."

I read carefully their website. I showed you where their inconsistencies were, and there are many of them. There were enough inconsistencies in the site for apparent contradictions to show up.

The ultimate decision is yours. If you agree with the website then go and join the OPC. You need not post it here any longer.
The RCC is full of heresy including baptismal regeneration. If you want to compare the RCC to the OPC then so be it. However, in the spirit of fairness I can make just as many, if not more, comparisons between the RCC and Hinduism than you can make between the RCC and the OPC. That is how paganistic the RCC is!!

 

[lori4dogs]

No, I'm not off to join the OPC or any of the other Presbyterian churches that practice infant baptism, and they all do. My point is this, DHK, 'in the spirit of fairness' why not stop continually singleling out the Catholic Church on doctrinal issues when other denominations hold the same or similar doctrines. The fact that Presbyterians are sacramental, Lutherans are sacramental, Anglicans are sacramental, Methodists are sacramental, Orthodox are sacramental, Roman Catholics are sacramental.

What is a sacrament: All the above say a sacrament is a "visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" instituted by Jesus Christ. ...

If I didn't know better, I would say that your hatred of the Catholic Church is so intense that you don't even consider that the protestant denominations that believe in the sacramental system.

 

[DHK]

No, I'm not off to join the OPC or any of the other Presbyterian churches that practice infant baptism, and they all do. My point is this, DHK, 'in the spirit of fairness' why not stop continually singleling out the Catholic Church on doctrinal issues when other denominations hold the same or similar doctrines. The fact that Presbyterians are sacramental, Lutherans are sacramental, Anglicans are sacramental, Methodists are sacramental, Orthodox are sacramental, Roman Catholics are sacramental.

What is a sacrament: All the above say a sacrament is a "visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" instituted by Jesus Christ. ...

If I didn't know better, I would say that your hatred of the Catholic Church is so intense that you don't even consider that the protestant denominations that believe in the sacramental system.

Pay attention carefully.
This is straight from the OPC website:

baptism isn't magic. Baptism doesn't guarantee salvation any more than circumcision did. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone

But the RCC believes the opposite.

The RCC believes that baptism IS magic!
The RCC believes that Baptism guarantees salvation.
The RCC do not believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

DO NOT PRETEND THAT THE OPC'S DOCTRINE IS SIMILAR IN ANY WAY TO THE RCC'S. IT IS NOT!!!

 

[lori4dogs]

Pay attention carefully.
This is straight from the OPC website:

But the RCC believes the opposite.

The RCC believes that baptism IS magic!
The RCC believes that Baptism guarantees salvation.
The RCC do not believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

DO NOT PRETEND THAT THE OPC'S DOCTRINE IS SIMILAR IN ANY WAY TO THE RCC'S. IT IS NOT!!!
[/B]

The RCC does NOT believe that Baptism guarantees salvation, does NOT believe that baptism is magic.

"As far as Ephesians 2:8-9 Here is the Catholic teaching: St. Paul in Ephesians 2:8-10 tells us several things. Paul first tells us that faith is the means that we are saved, verse 8. It is not because of our works (verse 9), in and of themselves, that we are saved. The source of our salvation is God himself. He does call us his workmanship (verse 10). So even though our own works are not a source of our justification/salvation, God is the source of all the good works that we do."

 

[DHK]

The RCC does NOT believe that Baptism guarantees salvation, does NOT believe that baptism is magic.

Without being born again one cannot be saved. Born again = baptism.
Without baptism there is no salvation.
Without this superstitious magic of H2O being poured on you cannot enter into heaven. Go be a Hindu; plunge into the polluted waters of the Ganges River. They believe the same superstition as you. The Bible teaches no such thing. It is pure heresy.

"As far as Ephesians 2:8-9 Here is the Catholic teaching: St. Paul in Ephesians 2:8-10 tells us several things. Paul first tells us that faith is the means that we are saved, verse 8. It is not because of our works (verse 9), in and of themselves, that we are saved. The source of our salvation is God himself. He does call us his workmanship (verse 10). So even though our own works are not a source of our justification/salvation, God is the source of all the good works that we do."

And that is wrong. God is not the source of all your good works.
He is not the source of any of your works when it comes to salvation.
Christ taught the rich young ruler that not only he was not good, but that none but God is good. Therefore how could he do good works.

Mark 10:17-18 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
It is impossible for you to do good--as impossible as it is for an Ethiopian to change his skin color or a leopard to change his spots. You couldn't even do good if you tried.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
--And the good that you think you do, God thinks of it as filthy rags.
You can't do good.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Romans 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
--Do you get the picture yet?

You can't saved by doing good when it is impossible to do good.
It is only by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, can one be saved.

Your belief is that salvation is by works, the works of baptism as well as other works. That is heresy.
It denies the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. How much in the atonement did you help out with Christ in paying the penalty of our sins? How much credit do you take when the Bible teaches that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. How much of that penalty did you pay? 10%? 40%?

Jesus paid it all. There are no works involved.

 

[Trotter]

" . . . you can see that this objection is mistaken because it proves too much. The fundamental argument is that because infants cannot believe, they cannot be baptized. However, if you apply this same logic to the rest of the verse, you are forced to conclude that because infants cannot believe they cannot be saved either. This objection not only keeps infants from baptism, it keeps them from heaven.

Now if it doesn't have 'diddly squat' to do with salvation, why do the Presbyterians claim that not baptizing babies would 'keep them from heaven'?
Did you really read the web-page or are you just parroting DHK like you usually do?

DHK and I disagree on quite a few things, so trying to charge me with parroting him is a real hoot. I checked out the OPC site and can say I wasn't impressed. I didn't read every word, but I did peruse their doctrine and history which was all I needed to know.

Your quoted "logic" is almost as flawed as the RCC's doctrines. Can a child who has no concept of sin, salvation, God, life, death, or anything else beyond hunger and didrty diapers make a conscious decision to place their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as the resurrected Son of God? And yet some idiot is attempted to put this very thing forward... and you are quoting it like it came from the Pope's mouth (which it very well could have for all I know).

I have asked before, and I will ask again... do you think on your own? You are good at hiding behind a cloud of copied and pasted quotes, but I see very little of your own beliefs and convictions. Yes, I know that you believe everything that falls from the lips of the pope, and that his words and the mandates of the Church supersede the bible (which is where the RCC began its downward spiral long, long ago). Can you stand up for and defend your own beliefs? Or do you have to have others do it? Or are you just going to continue to run and hide from any serious questions?

 

[lori4dogs]

Didn't answer the question, did you Trotter. It seem you are the one who 'runs and hides'.

" . . . you can see that this objection is mistaken because it proves too much. The fundamental argument is that because infants cannot believe, they cannot be baptized. However, if you apply this same logic to the rest of the verse, you are forced to conclude that because infants cannot believe they cannot be saved either. This objection not only keeps infants from baptism, it keeps them from heaven.

Now if it doesn't have 'diddly squat' to do with salvation, why do the Presbyterians claim that not baptizing babies would 'keep them from heaven'?

 

[DHK]

Now if it doesn't have 'diddly squat' to do with salvation, why do the Presbyterians claim that not baptizing babies would 'keep them from heaven'?

Go ask a Presbyterian. Why do the very same Presbyterians say very clearly and dogmatically leaving no room for any ambiguity:

baptism isn't magic. Baptism doesn't guarantee salvation any more than circumcision did. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone

Is that not clear enough?

Why is the RCC like the Hindus, worshiping many gods: the god of Mary, (possibly others), as well as the triune God. You are polytheistic, like the Hindus. Like the Hindus you believe in the magic of holy water. You attribute divine qualities to Mary, attributes that only God can have. Therefore she is a goddess in the Catholic Church, and the RCC is polytheistic.

 

[lori4dogs]

Go ask a Presbyterian. Why do the very same Presbyterians say very clearly and dogmatically leaving no room for any ambiguity:
Is that not clear enough?

The Presbyterians are the ones that stated that on their web-page, so obviously you are wrong. They clearly state that 'not baptizing babies could keep them out of heaven'. I didn't make that claim, THEY DID!

Why is the RCC like the Hindus, worshiping many gods: the god of Mary, (possibly others), as well as the triune God. You are polytheistic, like the Hindus. Like the Hindus you believe in the magic of holy water. You attribute divine qualities to Mary, attributes that only God can have. Therefore she is a goddess in the Catholic Church, and the RCC is polytheistic.

You make ridiculous statements such as this and you lose all credibility.

 

[DHK]

You make ridiculous statements such as this and you lose all credibility.

You don't like the comparison to Hinduism; I know.
They have female goddesses; so do you.

You worship Mary, as a god. But you will deny it.
If what I say is true (and it is), then the RCC is polytheistic like Hinduism, correct?

The RCC must admit that when one billion Catholics world wide pray TO Mary, and Mary (who is dead) hears their prayers, and is able to answer their prayers, then it becomes obvious that:
1. Mary is omnipresent--everywhere so she can hear the prayers of all Catholics everywhere.
2. Mary is omniscient--knowing the prayers of all Catholics everywhere.
3. Mary is omnipotent--able to answer all prayers of all Catholics everywhere.
--These are attributes that only God can have. Once you attribute them to Mary, Vishnu, Ram, or anyone else, you treat that one as a god. They in fact have become deity. And that is what the RCC has done with Mary. Thus you have made Mary deity, as well as others.

You just won't admit to it. I don't lose credibility here; you do.
The fact that you can't refute what I say, but simply lash out at me clearly shows that you have already lost all credibility.

 

[lori4dogs]

Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30 - Jesus converses with "deceased" Moses and Elijah. They are more alive than the saints on earth.

Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38 - God is the God of the living not the dead. The living on earth and in heaven are one family.

Luke 15:7,10 – if the angels and saints experience joy in heaven over our repentance, then they are still connected to us and are aware of our behavior.

John 15:1-6 - Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. The good branches are not cut off at death. They are alive in heaven.

1 Cor. 4:9 – because we can become a spectacle not only to men, but to angels as well, this indicates that angels are aware of our earthly activity. Those in heaven are connected to those on earth.

1 Cor. 12:26 - when one member suffers, all suffer. When one is honored, all rejoice. We are in this together as one family.

1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2 - now we see in a mirror dimly, but in heaven we see face to face. The saints are more alive than we are!

Heb. 12:1: we are surrounded by a great glory cloud (shekinah) of witnesses. The “cloud of witnesses” refers to the saints who are not only watching us from above but cheering us on in our race to heaven.

 

[Trotter]

Didn't answer the question, did you Trotter. It seem you are the one who 'runs and hides'.

" . . . you can see that this objection is mistaken because it proves too much. The fundamental argument is that because infants cannot believe, they cannot be baptized. However, if you apply this same logic to the rest of the verse, you are forced to conclude that because infants cannot believe they cannot be saved either. This objection not only keeps infants from baptism, it keeps them from heaven.

Now if it doesn't have 'diddly squat' to do with salvation, why do the Presbyterians claim that not baptizing babies would 'keep them from heaven'?

I did respond to you, but it looks like the BB ate it for lunch.

No one, regardless of age, that does not believe should be baptized. To baptize a non-believer is to make them a wet sinner. I have said this over and over and yet you still seem to be hard of hearing. Turn up your hearing aid this time. Baptizing a non-believer, regardless of age, is completely useless.

Why do the Presbyterians (at least this sect of them) claim it? Because they are idiots, pure and simple. Whether or not anyone is baptized makes no difference to their salvation. why is this simple concept so hard for you to grasp? It doesn't matter if you are Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, or whatever... baptism is merely a ritual to show the world what has been done within us. It has absolutely no bearing on salvation, and if performed before salvation is making a mockery of the work of Christ.

I believe that any infant that dies goes to heaven. David said that while he could not bring his dead son back to him, he could go to where he was and I have put my faith in this since I have lost two infant sons. To try to say that any infant is damned because they were not sprinkled is heresy... just as claiming baptism is needed for salvation is heresy.

 

[lori4dogs]

Trotter, I'm very sorry that you and your wife experienced such losses. I agree that the example of David and his statement about his son should give you such a hope. Our Lord is loving and merciful.

The Catholic Church had once thought that un-baptized babies did not go to hell but to a state of 'limbo'. The Church has re-thought this and believes that because of God's nature, the fact that abortions take place at the rate they do and the victims of war and famine, that there is reason to believe that God welcomes such into heaven. The Church still strongly suggests that people baptize their infant children.

The Presbyterians do seem to take a 'hard line' on the subject and I believe they are in error. However, my reason for posting their beliefs was to show that Presbyterians do believe that baptism is more than just a symbol (and all Presbyterians baptize infants). The fact that they also believe that baptized infants must also eventually repent of their sins and trust in the atonement is something they share with most other sacramental Christian churches including my own.

You and I both believe our positions are biblical, so there we are.

 

[DHK]

Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30 - Jesus converses with "deceased" Moses and Elijah. They are more alive than the saints on earth.

No, they are not. They do not yet have their resurrection bodies. God himself buried Moses. He died. Therefore he is dead. If you read the passage even the "visage" or appearance of Jesus was changed though he was not in his resurrection body. God allowed something different to happen on the Mount of Transfiguration, but they did not appear in their resurrection bodies. Not even Jesus did.

Furthermore, you take scripture out of context. Where did Peter, James or John pray TO Elijah or Moses? They didn't.

Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38 - God is the God of the living not the dead. The living on earth and in heaven are one family.

That is not what it says.
First you ignore context. What is the context of this verse?

Matthew 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
The Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection nor in immortality.
But Jesus says:
Matthew 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
He is refuting their doctrine. Those who have died will either go to hell or heaven. Christ is Lord over the living (those that are saved), not the dead (those that are unsaved and separated from Christ). The souls of the living go to heaven--a good passage to refute the SDA doctrine of soul sleep.
--However we don't find Jesus praying to them, or any disciple praying to them.

Luke 15:7,10 – if the angels and saints experience joy in heaven over our repentance, then they are still connected to us and are aware of our behavior.

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Luke 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
--First it speaks of the angels in heaven and says nothing of saints.
Second it says nothing about anyone of them being connected to us.
Third, it infers that angels have the knowledge of some of the things that occur on earth.
Fourth, there is no evidence anywhere in the Bible, that Mary, Peter, John, your great grand-mother, Trotter's two children, or anyone else in heaven is able to see what is happening on earth. That is just speculation. Since the Bible tells us that there will be no tears in heaven it is likely that no one in heaven can see what is happening on earth, for they would surely cry over it.

John 15:1-6 - Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. The good branches are not cut off at death. They are alive in heaven.

Baloney! That has nothing to do with heaven.

1 Cor. 4:9 – because we can become a spectacle not only to men, but to angels as well, this indicates that angels are aware of our earthly activity. Those in heaven are connected to those on earth.

The dead are not angels. Why do you have such a hard time confusing the two. Mary is not an angel; neither the 12 disciples. There is no connection to those on earth. It is almost as if you are making up lies on purpose.

1 Cor. 12:26 - when one member suffers, all suffer. When one is honored, all rejoice. We are in this together as one family.

You have got to be kidding, right!!
This passage is speaking of the local church, the church at Corinth specifically. When one of the members at the church at Corinth was suffering then all the members at Corinth were able to empathize with that member. It applies only to the local church.

1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2 - now we see in a mirror dimly, but in heaven we see face to face. The saints are more alive than we are!

This speaks of our future. It does not speak of the dead. It does not speak of saints in heaven. It does not speak of one being able to communicate with anyone in heaven. Have you ever studied a Bible?

Heb. 12:1: we are surrounded by a great glory cloud (shekinah) of witnesses. The “cloud of witnesses” refers to the saints who are not only watching us from above but cheering us on in our race to heaven.

The great cloud is not shekinah; it is historical. There have been martyrs, great men of God, missionaries, and others that have passed on before us, setting an example for us. Chapter 11 is the heroes of the faith chapter, and exhorts us to live lives of faith as they did. They are the cloud of witnesses. They can't see us, but we see, through the eye of history what they have accomplished. It does not speak of anyone communicating to one in heaven, or one in heaven communicating to us.
Do you study a Bible?

 

[Zenas]

The great cloud is not shekinah; it is historical. There have been martyrs, great men of God, missionaries, and others that have passed on before us, setting an example for us. Chapter 11 is the heroes of the faith chapter, and exhorts us to live lives of faith as they did. They are the cloud of witnesses. They can't see us, but we see, through the eye of history what they have accomplished. It does not speak of anyone communicating to one in heaven, or one in heaven communicating to us.

Two very prominent Baptists--Albert Mohler and Billy Graham--would disagree with you on this. Both of them have stated on the record that the cloud of witnesses can see us.

 

[DHK]

Two very prominent Baptists--Albert Mohler and Billy Graham--would disagree with you on this. Both of them have stated on the record that the cloud of witnesses can see us.

Let them disagree. Billy Graham is a famous evangelist with a shallow theology and shallow message. What evidence does he bring (besides his own opinion) that there are so-called saints in heaven peering out from heaven and watching our every step. I don't go by men's opinion, but by the Word of God. That is why I am no longer a Catholic. They believe in vain man's philosophy and have long since departed from the Word of God.
As for Albert Mohler I don't know much about him, and it really doesn't matter to me.

 

[Zenas]

So Lori, Brianna, Matt, Agnus Dei, Zenas how do you explain this? Not that I dislike you guys but effectiveness is an issue (In fact you guys often have keen insite into what you believe). What really works? Are the sacraments effective? How if they did nothing for me or others? What about the fruit of the church. I know Matt is Anglican and Agnus Dei is Orthodox, Zenas I think is baptist but has a knowledge of the Catholic Church. Yet each holds to a belief in the sacraments. Yet what about the fruit as Jesus above acknowldeges it?

TS, I have thought about this question for a couple of days and I can't improve on Doubting Thomas' response to you in Post #6. You say the sacraments did nothing for you. Maybe not, but I can tell you that grace is not something you feel flowing into your system. It may not even result in changed behavior, altough it often does. Finally let me say that I am an advocate of the sacraments, not because of what I have observed. I am an advocate of the sacraments because they are based on scripture. Some, such as matrimony, are somewhat obscure. Most, however, are as plain as the nose on your face and I believe the Bible is true.