Pope Francis defends infant baptism

[RileyG]

For my education, can you tell me the names of the 7 sacraments?

Best wishes,
KT

Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion (Eucharist), Reconciliation (Confession), Matrimony (Marriage), and Holy Orders (Ordination).

 

[bbbbbbb]

No way.

Phil 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; RSVCE

Thank you. That has also been my understanding of Catholic soteriology. Although the hope of salvation is sincerely offered to all Catholics, there is no absolute assurance that one will be saved.

 

[RileyG]

Thank you. That has also been my understanding of Catholic soteriology. Although the hope of salvation is sincerely offered to all Catholics, there is no absolute assurance that one will be saved.

Correct, because one can reject God by mortal sin.

 

[Valletta]

Thank you. That has also been my understanding of Catholic soteriology. Although the hope of salvation is sincerely offered to all Catholics, there is no absolute assurance that one will be saved.

You are welcome. Yes, you've got that right. Let me add that we are encouraged to have hope.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Exactly! Neither did St. Paul.

St. Paul is interesting in this aspect. Romans 7 can be understood as his lack of assurance, although the final verse of that chapter puts paid to the notion. There is also Philippians 3:7-14 which is probably the most explicit statement to that effect. On the other hand, he goes to great lengths to assure his audience in Ephesians 1 that those whom God has predestined have been sealed with the Holy Spirit. I think that these extremes can be reconciled in that although God has predestined His people for salvation and that they cannot possible lose that salvation, from a human perspective nobody can determine with absolute certainty if they are among the elect. The outward life is a clear indicator of the inward life, but, even then, it is not an absolute indicator.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Correct, because one can reject God by mortal sin.

Thank you again for confirming my understanding of Catholic soteriology.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are welcome. Yes, you've got that right. Let me add that we are encouraged to have hope.

Biblical hope is the closest to assurance that I think people can get. Without that hope there is utter despair.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Blessings

You are welcome.

 

[RileyG]

Biblical hope is the closest to assurance that I think people can get. Without that hope there is utter despair.

We have reasonable hope we are saved because God keeps his promises, and despair itself is a sin.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I do not know what all sacrament means to these Churches but I do believe in shadows and patterns for understanding.

According to the Carnal command, true...

This I question. Where do you get this from?

I also question this. I do not see replacement, but something new.
This concerns lies being told about Paul and his teaching......He did not tell Jewish believers to not circumcise their children......
Ac 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

James Told Paul to prove these allegations false.
A recount of the decision of acts 15 council.....


22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

Even concerning the letter sent to all the churches at that time.... (4 prohibitions)

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.


I think the focal point of these things concerned the promises made to Abraham.
Before the law of moses
Not abolished by the law
Come to it's fullness in Christ.....

Thank you. The bottom line is that virtually no Christian believes that circumcision and baptism are synonymous. They are compared to each other in these two verses from Colossians, but, as you say, the promises made through Abraham, including circumcision, are fulfilled and transformed in Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

We have reasonable hope we are saved because God keeps his promises, and despair itself is a sin.

Agreed.

 

[KevinT]

I am always wary of any individual here at CF who uses the word explicitly. An individual's assumptions about the text surfaces readily. From my observation, the usage of "explicitly" shows a demand for their own person belief with a bar so high no such alternative belief will be entertained. Actually, "explicitly" demands precision in Bible speak where none is given.

Examples:
Where does the Bible EXPLICITLY state an eight year old child cannot be a pastor?
Where does the Bible EXPLICITLY state the topic of Abortion?
Where does the Bible EXPLICITLY allow churches to own private property?
Where does the Bible EXPLICITLY state women can take Holy Communion?
Where does the Bible EXPLICITLY bar infants from baptism?

And the list goes on and on and on and on.

The usage of the word "explicit" is a massive roadblock to free inquiry of the Biblical text.

I agree that the Bible does not explicitly state the things listed above. I was actually trying to show that many things are not explicitly written. I am puzzled why, then, you demanded a chapter and verse when I proposed that a person might be baptized a 2nd time. And you criticized my post about church fathers' beliefs on infant baptism because I did not at that time base the discussion on scriptures.

It seems to me that you are using different rules of support at different times. I think you and I may be too far apart to reach a consensus.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[KevinT]

Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion (Eucharist), Reconciliation (Confession), Matrimony (Marriage), and Holy Orders (Ordination).

Thank you. Are each of these sacraments something that is given by the Church priests etc to the laity? It seems that Ordination would only be given to church priests etc. I apparently don't know what Holy Orders means.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[RileyG]

Thank you. Are each of these sacraments something that is given by the Church priests etc to the laity? It seems that Ordination would only be given to church priests etc. I apparently don't know what Holy Orders means.

Best wishes,

KT

A Bishop must ordain priests, deacons and consecrate other Bishops.

First a man is ordained a deacon, then a priest, and if chosen by the Apostolic nuncio, a Bishop (or Archbishop). If Chosen by the Pope, (a priest or bishop) a Cardinal (who elect and advise the Pope), and if chosen by the College of Cardinals who vote, A Pope.

A priest always remains a deacon, just like a Bishop always remains a priest.

The Pope is a Bishop- the Bishop of Rome, that is.

In Marriage, it's the couple who performs the Sacrament. The priest just witness it.

Under normal circumstances, confirmation is given by the Bishop. Under some circumstances, confirmation is given by the Parish priest, especially on Holy Saturday when the Bishop isn't available.

Hope I'm making sense?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

But I will point out that there is a difference between a child and an infant.

A little bit of Greek will help out here. The general word for children of any age is

I agree that the Bible does not explicitly state the things listed above. I was actually trying to show that many things are not explicitly written. I am puzzled why, then, you demanded a chapter and verse when I proposed that a person might be baptized a 2nd time. And you criticized my post about church fathers' beliefs on infant baptism because I did not at that time base the discussion on scriptures.

It seems to me that you are using different rules of support at different times. I think you and I may be too far apart to reach a consensus.

Best wishes,

KT

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. All answers I will address by Scripture; The clear text of Scripture states there is only one baptism....

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.​

​

In order to believe Scripture states there are two baptisms or a rebaptism, I am going to need a clearer text than Eph. 4, to over ride it. There is none. This is why I said "Chapter and verse for the authority to rebaptize." There is no text of Scripture that supports two baptisms.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I did find an article here that points out it may have been a Jewish practice before John.

A while back I developed matrix that might help

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

But I will point out that there is a difference between a child and an infant.

In English Yes…..in Greek….no, Luke uses τοῖς τέκνοις (children) and it is a generalized word for children of any age. Luke uses two other words for descendants Σπέρμα (sperma) Acts 7:5, Σπέρμα Acts 7:6, σπέρματος Acts 13:3 and ὀσφύος osphus, or loins) Acts 2:29. Luke could have used Σπέρμα or ὀσφύος as a substitute for τοῖς τέκνοις but didn’t.

Furthermore, we see the word τέκνοις (children) accompanied by ὑμῶν. Ὑμῶν, meaning your, occurs in the genitive (a possessive), 2nd person plural. This tells us that Peter is speaking of the children of those he is speaking to, that is, the children of the crowd. The text itself communicates a literal idea, that the promise found in Baptism is granted to the crowd and their families. So your hermeneutical rule…children really means descendants….falls flat.

Proper hermenuetics at least demands what the term τέκνοις (children) meant by the original speakers and what the original audience would have inferred by it. Peter was addressing the hearers as the Jewish people as a whole. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:32) We can clearly see that he is addressing them as covenant community and not as individuals, even though the people listening to Peter didn't have a personal hand in crucifying Jesus yet Peter does say that "you" as a covenant community crucified him.

So how would this Jewish covenant community have understood the term τέκνοις (children) Peter was preaching about? The Jews, who had been initiating their children via circumcision into the visible covenant community for 2,000 years, should be convinced by Peter’s preaching they must no longer do so if baptism was not for their children. Peter gives no admonition to bar children from baptism. It would have intuitive for Peter’s listeners to understand τέκνοις to mean their children would be included rather than excluded from baptism.

 

[KevinT]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. All answers I will address by Scripture; The clear text of Scripture states there is only one baptism....

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.​

​

In order to believe Scripture states there are two baptisms or a rebaptism, I am going to need a clearer text than Eph. 4, to over ride it. There is none. This is why I said "Chapter and verse for the authority to rebaptize." There is no text of Scripture that supports two baptisms.

OK. I see where you are coming from now. I would interpret "one baptism" to mean only one KIND of baptism, just as there is only one KIND of faith. But I see that your interpretation is also reasonable.

I see baptism as symbolic of a believer coming to Christ to repent and wash away their sins. And thus if there was a major falling away, it would be OK to go through the repentance etc process again. I think you feel baptism is an action that should only be done once, as circumcision would only be done once.

But having made my side of the argument, I do think I have heard from pastors in my church that just because someone has fallen away and now wants to come back to Christ, they do NOT HAVE to be rebaptized. So that would side more with your understanding. To be honest, I'm not sure why I have put this much effort into discussing this because I don't really have a dog in this race.

I would argue, though, that if one is going to be baptized only once, it would be BEST to be done as a thinking human that knows that they are doing and is consciously choosing to repent and turn to Jesus. If I was the leader of a church, I would encourage people to be baptized when they are grown enough to know what they are doing.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[KevinT]

Under normal circumstances, confirmation is given by the Bishop. Under some circumstances, confirmation is given by the Parish priest, especially on Holy Saturday when the Bishop isn't available.

Hope I'm making sense?

I am understanding better the Catholic teachings.

Can you tell me more about what confirmation is?

Thanks
KT

 

[KevinT]

A while back I developed matrix that might help

View attachment 354203

Can you explain what you mean by the recipient being in a passive state? In all the baptisms I have seen in protestant churches, the person is laid back in the water by the pastor, and then helped back up by the pastor. Is that what you are referring to? The actual method that John used when baptizing Jesus isn't really described in scripture.

I had not considered Jewish Proselyte baptism before. I just found this article about it. It seems to compare baptism to symbolic bathing rituals. But it is not clear to me if this Jewish practice was copied from Christians, or vice versa.

Thanks
KT