Which of your doctrines require church tradition?

[Thursday]

All right. I was speaking to Catholic theology. I have no way of guaranteeing that every member is on board with it, just as that can't be said of any other denomination.

I think you have a slight misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on grace and salvation.

Here's a comprehensive overview:

II. GRACE

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.47

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48



Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.49
2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God's call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God's interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"50



Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.51
2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of "eternal life" respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:



If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed "very good" since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.52

 

[Albion]

I think you have a slight misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on grace and salvation.

Not at all, but I can appreciate that you could have misunderstood what I was saying, despite my best efforts to be both succinct and accurate.

 

[MrMoe]

Ok. My second point still stands. Does Baptism as taught in Scripture have a benefit to infants and young children, and obviously the answer is yes;

I disagree. I don't think the answer is an obvious yes.

so why prevent children from benefiting being a reborn Child of God? If the answer is no reason, then why assume that the Apostles were too dumb to make the connection?

So you believe infant baptism makes the infant a child of God even without confessing Jesus as Lord?

I have a few questions.

1. Baptised infants that grow up to become atheists or become apart of a pagan religion and die in unbelief, are they still considered a child of God when they die?

2. Where do unbaptized infants go if they die and can they ever get out of there?

 

[MrMoe]

Why does it matter that not all households have infants, relevant to the topic.

Because the claim that was made is that there are households mentioned in Acts therefore infant baptism happened:

Does not Acts speak of whole households being baptized? Or are infants not part of households?

Since not all households have infants and since there are only four households mentioned in Acts you need to prove there were infants in those four households to show that infant baptism had indeed happened in Acts.

If some households had infants, and entire households were baptized, infants were baptized.

Exactly, in some households. So prove that there were infants in at least one of the four households mentioned in Acts without using the argument from silence.

Except for the above.

You haven't shown me anything yet.

We know that parents make ALL SORTS of decisions for their offspring...

Firstly, you need to show there were infants present in this household in the first place.
Secondly, this is not how salvation works. You can't believe something for someone else, they have to believe it for themselves.

Entire: i.e. unified, complete. Believed in the Lord. Infants cannot do this, so there could not be any infants in this household.

Same answer. Parents choose what children eat, what they wear, what they read, what they listen to,

You're comparing mundane everyday things to choosing salvation. They are hardly comparable.

and what their faith will be.

But they can't choose if they believe it.

Doesn't really matter. In the case of Peter baptizing 5000 men and their families, children were baptized.

Again you're using eisegesis . Acts 4:4 says about five thousand men. Says nothing about their families and definitely nothing about infants being baptized.

We know that she was in charge of a household, though. That makes her old enough to have a household.

But We don't know if she was a widow or a divorcee or even if she was capable of having children. So you can't prove infant baptism happened in this case either.

If she had children, regardless of age, and based on the time, they were still part of her household.

Not unless they had married and moved out. Then they would be part of a different household.

We're arguing from certainty that households included men, women, children in most cases, and sometimes employees and slaves.

"in most cases" is not all cases, therefore not certain. In some cases it could have been the widowed husband or wife with just their employees and slaves.

The truth is there is no proof of infant baptism ever happening in the New Testament. You cannot make a case for it happening in the New Testament without using eisegesis and arguments from silence.

 

[Albion]

So you believe infant baptism makes the infant a child of God even without confessing Jesus as Lord?

I have a few questions.

1. Baptised infants that grow up to become atheists or become apart of a pagan religion and die in unbelief, are they still considered a child of God when they die?

By the same token, what do you say about a person who makes a profession of faith at some time in his life and is baptised, but later abandons the faith? Is the Church or the religion to be faulted for having considered him a child of God, redeemed, etc. during the time leading up to his change of heart??

2. Where do unbaptized infants go if they die and can they ever get out of there?

No one knows for certain because this is not definitively answered by Scripture. The general feeling among churches that baptize infants is that God takes care of such people, certainly the children of believers, although what his provision exactly is, we do not know. But what do you say about the death of an infant who is NOT baptised? Is such a person better off for having been denied baptism? If so, how?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

It seems to me that the word baptism is being treated as a word without meaning, which may be defining the problem in a nutshell, because obviously baptism means different things to different people.
Water baptism is unto repentance, fire baptism is into the Holy Spirit, which one of those covers infant baptism?'

What do others define baptism as?

 

[Albion]

It seems to me that the word baptism is being treated as a word without meaning, which may be defining the problem in a nutshell, because obviously baptism means different things to different people.
Water baptism is unto repentance, fire baptism is into the Holy Spirit, which one of those covers infant baptism?'

What do others define baptism as?

"Water" Baptism.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

By the same token, ?

You can hardly say that's by the same token when one was a consciouse decision and one was not.

And the above question was not answered

 

[Albion]

You can hardly say that's by the same token when one was a consciouse decision and one was not.

Sure I can. Both situations involve a baptised person who later leaves the faith. Same token.

So what do we say about the person of mature years who has a conversion experience and is baptized but later abandons the faith? Is Baptism wrong? Is the Church wrong? Why should anyone feel that baptizing infants is wrong because of the chance of them not growing up as Christians when the same situation exists with those who aren't baptised until they're older?

 

[Erose]

I disagree. I don't think the answer is an obvious yes.

So you say through the lens of your faith tradition. When I read Scripture is is extremely obvious that is true.

So you believe infant baptism makes the infant a child of God even without confessing Jesus as Lord?

Yes. The grace of Baptism is the work of God not man.

I have a few questions.

1. Baptised infants that grow up to become atheists or become apart of a pagan religion and die in unbelief, are they still considered a child of God when they die?

Yes, albeit, one who has rejected this gift.

2. Where do unbaptized infants go if they die and can they ever get out of there?

Don't know. Divine Revelation is silent on this matter.

 

[Erose]

You can hardly say that's by the same token when one was a consciouse decision and one was not.

And the above question was not answered

The key understanding here, is who does Baptism benefit? Man or God?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Because the claim that was made is that there are households mentioned in Acts therefore infant baptism happened:

That's right. Some had children, regardless of if it's one, five or 105. If one had children, the children were baptized as part of the household.

Since not all households have infants and since there are only four households mentioned in Acts you need to prove there were infants in those four households to show that infant baptism had indeed happened in Acts.

There are many more than four.

Exactly, in some households. So prove that there were infants in at least one of the four households mentioned in Acts without using the argument from silence.

Why do I have to? You can't prove adult-only baptism without arguing from silence. It never says only adults.

You haven't shown me anything yet.

Likewise.

Firstly, you need to show there were infants present in this household in the first place.
Secondly, this is not how salvation works. You can't believe something for someone else, they have to believe it for themselves.

Baptism is the entry into Christianity. Just the start. In our faith, you go through many years of education before you speak for yourself. The thief on the cross didn't know anything about Christ, yet he was saved.

Entire: i.e. unified, complete. Believed in the Lord. Infants cannot do this, so there could not be any infants in this household.

We disagree. See, you think that you just get wet when you're baptized, but we believe it places an unremovable mark on your soul. Baptism saves you, removes the stain of original sin, without which you cannot enter heaven. That's why we don't wait.

You're comparing mundane everyday things to choosing salvation. They are hardly comparable.

Not mundane. If you don't feed a child properly, he will die.

But they can't choose if they believe it.

They can't choose what they should eat either. It's important that the parents protect the child, and baptism is part of it.

Again you're using eisegesis . Acts 4:4 says about five thousand men. Says nothing about their families and definitely nothing about infants being baptized.

So you think there were no women or children???Who's using eisegesis now???

But We don't know if she was a widow or a divorcee or even if she was capable of having children. So you can't prove infant baptism happened in this case either.

Don't have to, from this case.

Not unless they had married and moved out. Then they would be part of a different household.

That's not the way households worked in ancient times. More likely they lived in the same home.

"in most cases" is not all cases, therefore not certain. In some cases it could have been the widowed husband or wife with just their employees and slaves.

But that's not all cases, either.

The truth is there is no proof of infant baptism ever happening in the New Testament. You cannot make a case for it happening in the New Testament without using eisegesis and arguments from silence.

The truth is that Scripture never says ONLY Adults, either. The fact is that it was mostly adults converting, but their whole families converted when head of household converted.

 

[BobRyan]

By the same token, what do you say about a person who makes a profession of faith at some time in his life and is baptised, but later abandons the faith? Is the Church or the religion to be faulted for having considered him a child of God, redeemed, etc. during the time leading up to his change of heart??


No one knows for certain because this is not definitively answered by Scripture. The general feeling among churches that baptize infants is that God takes care of such people, certainly the children of believers, although what his provision exactly is, we do not know. But what do you say about the death of an infant who is NOT baptised? Is such a person better off for having been denied baptism? If so, how?

"The general feeling among churches that baptize infants is that God takes care of such people, certainly the children of believers,"

Ok so is the issue "The feeling among churches that baptize infants" - or is the issue "what can you show sola scriptura".

If the question is framed as in the OP then it is true that there is not one example of infant baptism in scripture - and never is baptism said to be on the basis of "your family is saved so now you are to be baptized, no need to accept the gospel" nor is it "your family wants you to be saved - so now you will be baptized, no need to accept the Gospel".

In scripture baptism is always a choice - and in Romans 6 the argument is made that once you make that choice you should no longer engage in a life of sin and rebellion.

In acts it is always "Those who hear" that are baptized - not those who have no understanding at all in the matter.

The concept of "limbo" and something even worse - as the destiny of unbaptized infants - is what gave all the motivation to this non-NT practice in the first place.

 

[BobRyan]

What practises are not seen in the early church?

1) praying to Mary

2) praying to the saints

3) venerating Mary

4) submitting to a pope

5) having a select priesthood

6) baptizing an infant

7) etc etc

Hebrews 8 "If HE were still on Earth - He would not be a priest at all" -- earthly priests - ended.

 

[BobRyan]

What do we know about the first Church from scripture?

1) It was hierarchical, it had leaders and we were instructed to follow the leaders.

2) The leaders had the authority of Christ to forgive sins

3) The leaders had the power to bind and loose

4) Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom

5) When doctrinal disputes arose, the Church leaders were consulted

6) Successors of the apostles were appointed.

7) Deacons were ordained

8) New Church bishops were selected as the Church grew.


Which Church does this sound like?

The only successor to an apostle that we see in the NT is for Judas -- not for James. Acts 12:2 - who dies by the sword and nobody "succeeds" his apostleship - as appointed by the church, the way we see in Acts 1.

There is not one example in all of the NT of anyone saying "I absolve you of sin" or "your sins are forgiven" - except for Christ.

There is not one reference to Peter getting something from Christ - like Keys - that were not also given to all the disciples.

 

[Albion]

"The general feeling among churches that baptize infants is that God takes care of such people, certainly the children of believers,"

Ok so is the issue "The feeling among churches that baptize infants" - or is the issue "what can you show sola scriptura".

Unless someone is making it into a dogma, Sola Scriptura is not the issue. In this case, a question was posed about a matter that Scripture doesn't define. While we ought not to say that there is some one definitive answer, we certainly can mention what the most common guess is.

If the question is framed as in the OP then it is true that there is not one example of infant baptism in scripture

I'm sure you believe that Bob, but many of us have already pointed you to the relevant verses.

 

[Thursday]

The only successor to an apostle that we see in the NT is for Judas -- not for James. Acts 12:2 - who dies by the sword and nobody "succeeds" his apostleship - as appointed by the church, the way we see in Acts 1.

There is not one example in all of the NT of anyone saying "I absolve you of sin" or "your sins are forgiven" - except for Christ.

There is not one reference to Peter getting something from Christ - like Keys - that were not also given to all the disciples.

Why do you assume that there was no successor for James? Paul speaks of ordaining bishops.

Jesus clearly gave the apostles his authority to forgive sins.

 

[MrMoe]

By the same token, what do you say about a person who makes a profession of faith at some time in his life and is baptised, but later abandons the faith? Is the Church or the religion to be faulted for having considered him a child of God, redeemed, etc. during the time leading up to his change of heart??


No one knows for certain because this is not definitively answered by Scripture. The general feeling among churches that baptize infants is that God takes care of such people, certainly the children of believers, although what his provision exactly is, we do not know. But what do you say about the death of an infant who is NOT baptised? Is such a person better off for having been denied baptism? If so, how?

Good questions. I'd like to know the answers to both.

 

[MrMoe]

So you say through the lens of your faith tradition.

Which faith traditions are you talking about?

When I read Scripture is is extremely obvious that is true.

When I read scripture I find the exact opposite is true.

Yes. The grace of Baptism is the work of God not man.

The actual baptising is physically done by a man, so do you mean the declaring of the infant a child of God?

Also, if someone is baptized as an infant do they need to be baptized again as an adult for any reason?

Yes, albeit, one who has rejected this gift.

So they went to hell despite being a child of God?

Don't know. Divine Revelation is silent on this matter.

Why is it silent on this matter? And why are there Catholics who believe they go to this place called limbo?

 

[MrMoe]

That's right. Some had children, regardless of if it's one, five or 105. If one had children, the children were baptized as part of the household.

Exactly, If one had children. So prove that one of the households mentioned in Acts had Children to prove that children were baptized.

By the way I am specifically talking about infants (from the Latin word infans, meaning "unable to speak" or "speechless")
which would be a child between the age of one month to up to 2 years of age.

There are many more than four.

Okay, chapter and verse please.

Why do I have to?

You can't prove adult-only baptism without arguing from silence. It never says only adults.

I'm glad you recognize that, that would be an argument from silence. Good thing I never made that argument.
What you don't seem to realize is that the opposite argument, your argument, is also arguing from silence. It never says children or infants included.

Likewise.

I've shown you that you've been using the argument from silence, as shown above.

Baptism is the entry into Christianity. Just the start. In our faith, you go through many years of education before you speak for yourself.

Actually Christ is the entry into Christianity

The thief on the cross didn't know anything about Christ, yet he was saved.

Actually the thief knew quite a bit about Jesus. He knew Jesus claimed or at least others claimed he was king of the Jews.
Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is Jesus, the king of the Jews. Matthew 27:37

He also knew from the people mocking Jesus that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and that he would rebuild the temple in three days.
and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!"
Matthew 27:40

He truly believed Jesus was a king, otherwise he would not have asked to be remembered in His kingdom.

So your claim that he didn't know anything is not true.

We disagree. See, you think that you just get wet when you're baptized,

No, that's not what I think.

but we believe it places an unremovable mark on your soul.

What is this unremovable mark?

Baptism saves you, removes the stain of original sin, without which you cannot enter heaven. That's why we don't wait.

I guess the thief on the cross never entered heaven then.

Not mundane. If you don't feed a child properly, he will die.

Mundane does not mean unnecessary.
Jesus offers us spiritual food. He offers us spiritual bread, if we eat we receive eternal life and spiritual water if we drink we will never thirst. John 6:34-35, John 4:10-14
Compared to the spiritual food Jesus offers us , physical food is mundane. i.e. common, banal,

"of or relating to this world or earth as contrasted with heaven; worldly; earthly:"

See link below

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mundane

They can't choose what they should eat either. It's important that the parents protect the child, and baptism is part of it.

What does baptism protect an infant from?

So you think there were no women or children???

Acts 4:4 says nothing about there being women and children, only men. So you can't just presume there were women and children just because that is what you believe must have happened.

You're reading your own ideas into the scriptures, which is eisegesis.

Who's using eisegesis now???

You are.

Don't have to, from this case.

It seems like you don't have to in any of the cases I've given you. You just seem to be saying 'it must have happened..... therefore it happened!' That's not a good argument.

That's not the way households worked in ancient times. More likely they lived in the same home.
But that's not all cases, either.

Exactly, not all cases, and you don't know this wasn't one of those cases.

The truth is that Scripture never says ONLY Adults, either.

I agree, but the Scriptures never says ALSO Infants, either. Both are arguments from silence.

The fact is that it was mostly adults converting,

How do you know it was mostly adults?

but their whole families converted when head of household converted.

We have only four examples of households being converted.

Jesus himself taught the opposite would be true.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Matthew 10:34-36