The Assumption of Mary

[billybtennessee]

It sure is good to see that we don't wanna add to scripture. Of course, reading infants into that word households, may just be doing that too. What has all this got to do with the 'assumptioning of Mary' teaching,?, and talking about adding to scripture....might wanna look at that one.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Scriptures says no infants! Not anybody's "private" interpretation!

I for one would like to see the verse that says this. If it's there it's been eluding me for 20 years. Seriously though, find no infants, excluding infants, infants are not to be baptized, or any variation thereof and I'll believe you. But until then the historical practice of the Church clears up any ambiguity about whether infants are or are not to be baptized absent any prohibition against infant baptism in the NT.

It sure is good to see that we don't wanna add to scripture. Of course, reading infants into that word households, may just be doing that too. What has all this got to do with the 'assumptioning of Mary' teaching,?, and talking about adding to scripture....might wanna look at that one.

If you ask me reading into the text that no infants were in the household is ludicrous, especially in antiquity when families were quite large. I don't know about you but my household had infants in it when I was growing up as did most of my friend's households.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Scripture demonstrates (three times, per my recollection) that entire households were baptized.

Jesus Christ commands, "Go, baptize ..." but does not state in His command an age limit.

To claim an age limit for baptism is indeed to add to Scripture.

"Suffer the little children to come unto Me."

AND children are also called....
Unless we skip or tear out this part of scriptures.

Acts Of Apostles 2:39
For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.


What promise?


[38] But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

And infants are indeed our children.
Who here says when someone asks...how many children do you have? They should say I have 3 and an infant...no they would say I have 4.
Infants are not inhuman, but they are our children.

Peter knew the promise was also for them to receive the Holy Spirit. And neither did he say - they would need to understand....
For the children are those to whom make up Heaven in God's eyes because they are without question - faithful, yet the Baptism is also for them.

I have seen no where what some suggest that they wait.
Or must be age of reason, that is extra biblical.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It sure is good to see that we don't wanna add to scripture. Of course, reading infants into that word households, may just be doing that too. What has all this got to do with the 'assumptioning of Mary' teaching,?, and talking about adding to scripture....might wanna look at that one.

Let's look at the mystery of Jesus.
We know that He is the First fruit of Heaven, BUT we also know a few other things about how He operates outside man's judgment...and time.

Jesus, the First fruit and say this again because its imperative you grasp it before we go on.

Again, as First fruit of Heaven, how can we say that if at the Transfiguration of our Lord He showed Himself standing with Elijah and Moses..? Perhaps He did not realize He must act and perform to our standards...I dont know.

Yet - we know the Apostles would not lie, at seeing them with Him in glory. Yes their bodies were already in glory. ..so says scriptures.

Now we have a cunumdrum. SO why are we told He is the First fruit - that is only He could open the gates? Certainly Moses did not open them, nor Elijah.

This shows that the perfect sacrifice He had not yet made was Promised and God is good on His Promises. Having made the Promise to die and rise again. Elijah and Moses and Henoch [lest we forget him] all were received into Heaven at the Promise of His redemptive sacrifice.

If God allowed us to see He doesnt work according to our terms, our time..how do we begin to believe He did not already give His Mother the same pre saved conditions, and not only that - but left her body to be corrupt on this earth...His own Mother...and yet would do for those who were not of His flesh?

The condition of showing the Apostles the glorified bodies of His prophets was a prefigure of those who did His Fathers will.
Yet His Mother is said to have done it perfectly... according to His own words.

Not Blessed is My mother 'JUST' because she gave birth to me, but Blessed is she because she did the Father's will.


Perhaps putting in our own generations words can help you gather what was actually said.

Although chosen and pre saved, had she refused, she too would have been like Eve. He made her for this because He trusted in her what He could not trust in Eve...to remain faithful.

And because she did the Father's will, all were saved.... because we all received the Christ.
Therefore by her actions and assent to the Father's will, she is Blessed among all women. AND all generations shall call Her Blessed.
Blessed is a venerable state.

Not even Elijah and Moses and Henoch were to be called Blessed in every generation - so you think really He would have left her on earth - His venerable Mother, and yet receive to Heaven those not called Blessed in every generation?

Doesnt make sense, does it?

 

[Thekla]

To baptize infants who have no way of telling one whether they believe on Christ or not is presumptuous sin. Scripture demonstrates that one must believe; i.e., "if thou believest, thou mayest." There must be a profession. Had the eunuch not professed faith in Christ, no doubt, Philip would have told him that he could not be baptized.

Can an infant trust God ?

Belief/pistis means trust.

Can you find the Scripture that shows some being forbidden baptism ?
Can you find the Scripture that shows that there were no infants in any of the three households ?

Christ said, "suffer the little children to come unto Me."
Christ commanded, "Go, baptize ..."
What was the limit placed by Jesus Christ ?

Can you presume to know that an infant has denied God ?
As you mentioned, David trusted God before his birth. John the Baptist knew God before his birth.

Have you denied baptism to one like David and John ?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Actually the more one studies the teachings regarding Mary, the more concerned they should become. The third council was in Ephesus. This was where the goddess Diana was so worshipped. Many who were accustomed to that were pushing hard for that council to vote as they did.

One could go all the way back to Isis and Osirus. The legend of Nimrod. He was killed, all parts found except the male part. She resurrected him and became with child, That is the meaning of the symbol of the obelisk. Like the one at St, Peters with a cross on the top. A lot of the symbols used of Rome have those pagan legends. They claim to have christianized them, but it is still troubling. Even easter is based more on a pagan day than the proper time to actually observe it, which is by the Jewish calander. Makes one wonder about that lady called Babylon.

What i find a matter of interest is the absolute fear of pagans.

God loved the pagans and even a broken clock is right twice a day.

To the gentiles [pagans] He wrote His laws on their hearts.
They possibly were given some prophesy to the Christ without complete comprehension... thinking imperfectly they imitated what God wrote in their hearts...
For their nation would be ingrafted to the vine...

Had the mystery of God been completely foreign to them they would have not been able to grasp much of the scriptures and Jesus Himself.

Though they misunderstood what was written in their hearts, for in Romans we know His laws were written, they accepted much that grew in their hearts ... as though a foreshadow in their own ways to the coming Messiah.

Aside from that - rereading where God does not want them to be like the pagans, in that they offered their newborn children to appease Molech their god.
They knew somehow what God would be like, Who He was and how things would be, though because they misunderstood and acted imperfectly, doesnt mean they didnt exaggerate what was written in their hearts.

Obviously without prophets to tell them they did many things so wrong....
But the fact they imitate what was to be, doesnt mean they have the 'copyrights' to what was and did happen.

Unless by the same token, we suggest Jesus is also wrong and an imitation to Mithras.

So is Jesus the imitation to Mithras because the pagans celebrated him the same way the Christians celebrated Jesus prior to Jesus?

Lets not worry so much about what the pagans did,,,just because they had some glimpse to their future and acted out on it in improper ways.
Ok? Are we good with that?

If anything else, it should be proof that God allowed them some imperfect knowledge of the Lord and how He worked.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Sola Scriptura shuts the door to heresies.

I strongly disagree.

Did you but know that all heresies in the past have come from twisting the scriptures?
Or upon human interpretation of the scriptures?

2 Peter 1:20
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

The Church was the only Church, the Bishops were the teachers within one ordained line, so says scriptures again. Tradition must be kept, so said Paul again in scriptures.
Outside of that - it becomes private interpretation.

 

[Thekla]

It sure is good to see that we don't wanna add to scripture. Of course, reading infants into that word households, may just be doing that too. What has all this got to do with the 'assumptioning of Mary' teaching,?, and talking about adding to scripture....might wanna look at that one.

Neither the EO, nor the RC are Sola Scriptura Churches.
We received from the beginning - from the time before the New Testament was written.

I do understand how other Churches might have this belief -- as they only received Scripture from those before them.

However, I do not understand how those who claim Sola Scriptura think it is ok to add to Scripture.

 

[sheina]

Scripture demonstrates (three times, per my recollection) that entire households were baptized.

Infant baptism is a doctrine by implication....it is implied ]that in five households in the N.T. that were visited by salvation, there must surely have been young children. These were the households of Cornelius in Acts. 10, Lydia in Acts 16, the Philippian jailer in Acts 16, Crispus in Acts 18, and Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1:16

The Case of Cornelius. It is stated in Acts 10:24 that those gathered with him in the house were his kinsmen and near friends. He sends word that they are `all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee [Peter] of God.' In v. 44 the Holy Spirit fell upon all them which heard the Word. In the New Testament the Holy Spirit fell only upon those who have believed. Those gathered were capable of hearing the commands of God with a view to believing and obeying. It is specifically stated in Acts 11:17 that those who were saved and baptized with Cornelius were those "who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ." Obviously these were not tiny infants.

Lydia and Her Household (Acts 16:14-15). Nothing is said about infants in this passage, and it is highly unlikely that this busy merchant woman would have had tiny babies. There is no evidence here whatsoever for the practice of infant baptism.

The Philippian jailer and his household (Acts 16:30-34) This passage clearly says that Paul spoke the Word of God to the entire household (v. 32) and that the entire household believed (v. 32-33). This could not be said of infants.

The household of Crispus (Acts 18:8) Those who were saved and baptized in this family were all believers, for we are told, "Crispus ... believed on the Lord with all his house." The ages of the members of crispus' family were not told but Scripture states that each one of them believed on the Lord. Obviously, then, they were not infants.

The household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16) Nothing is actually said about infants being present or baptized. In 1 Corinthians 16:15 it states that this household addicted themselves to the ministry. This could not be said of infants.

Jesus Christ commands, "Go, baptize ..." but does not state in His command an age limit.

Christ also commands BELIEVE and TEACH BEFORE one is baptized.

Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37

To claim an age limit for baptism is indeed to add to Scripture.

To imply that those households included infants is adding to Scripture.when entire households were baptized

"Suffer the little children to come unto Me."

That was not a command for baptism.

No one has the right to interject what is omitted from Scripture just to bolster subjectively a supposed doctrine and ignore the clear teaching of many other portions of the Word of God. This is what is being done when you imply that infants were present and were baptized, when the Scripture never states such is the case.

 

[sheina]

It sure is good to see that we don't wanna add to scripture. Of course, reading infants into that word households, may just be doing that too. What has all this got to do with the 'assumptioning of Mary' teaching,?, and talking about adding to scripture....might wanna look at that one.

The threads on these forum boards just seem to drift off topic. I have not been on any forum board where this is NOT the case. Sola Scriptura comes into the thread when we are dealing with topics that are extra-biblical. The assumption of Mary is not found in Scripture and neither is infant baptism.

 

[Thekla]

Infant baptism is a doctrine by implication....it is implied ]that in five households in the N.T. that were visited by salvation, there must surely have been young children. These were the households of Cornelius in Acts. 10, Lydia in Acts 16, the Philippian jailer in Acts 16, Crispus in Acts 18, and Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1:16

The Case of Cornelius. It is stated in Acts 10:24 that those gathered with him in the house were his kinsmen and near friends. He sends word that they are `all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee [Peter] of God.' In v. 44 the Holy Spirit fell upon all them which heard the Word. In the New Testament the Holy Spirit fell only upon those who have believed. Those gathered were capable of hearing the commands of God with a view to believing and obeying. It is specifically stated in Acts 11:17 that those who were saved and baptized with Cornelius were those "who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ." Obviously these were not tiny infants.

Lydia and Her Household (Acts 16:14-15). Nothing is said about infants in this passage, and it is highly unlikely that this busy merchant woman would have had tiny babies. There is no evidence here whatsoever for the practice of infant baptism.

The Philippian jailer and his household (Acts 16:30-34) This passage clearly says that Paul spoke the Word of God to the entire household (v. 32) and that the entire household believed (v. 32-33). This could not be said of infants.

The household of Crispus (Acts 18:8) Those who were saved and baptized in this family were all believers, for we are told, "Crispus ... believed on the Lord with all his house." The ages of the members of crispus' family were not told but Scripture states that each one of them believed on the Lord. Obviously, then, they were not infants.

The household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16) Nothing is actually said about infants being present or baptized. In 1 Corinthians 16:15 it states that this household addicted themselves to the ministry. This could not be said of infants.

Christ also commands BELIEVE and TEACH BEFORE one is baptized.

Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37

To imply that those households included infants is adding to Scripture.when entire households were baptized

That was not a command for baptism.

No one has the right to interject what is omitted from Scripture just to bolster subjectively a supposed doctrine and ignore the clear teaching of many other portions of the Word of God. This is what is being done when you imply that infants were present and were baptized, when the Scripture never states such is the case.

Given the number of households mentioned (and there were more not mentioned in Scripture) it would be curious if there were no infants.

In Sola Scriptura Churches, I understand that this is the case - but indeed I am not in a Sola Scriptura Church.

I assume then that in your Church the mentally retarded are never baptized.

Do you give an IQ test to qualify candidates for baptism ?

 

[Thekla]

The threads on these forum boards just seem to drift off topic. I have not been on any forum board where this is NOT the case. Sola Scriptura comes into the thread when we are dealing with topics that are extra-biblical. The assumption of Mary is not found in Scripture and neither is infant baptism.

Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Alright this is obviously going nowhere, basically your saying that infants could not have been in the household, and we're saying there were. So instead I'll get down to the problem all Anabaptists run into sooner or later, history.

We have statements by Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Hippolytus of Rome saying straight up that infant's were baptized, and in the case of Hippolytus actually describing the ceremony of baptism for infants, all of these men lived between 130 and 254 AD. Also keep in mind that this was not merely the case in the Western Church. It occurred all throughout the Eastern and Western Churches. Even the Indian Church which was separated from the other churches extremely early on practices infant baptism.

The earliest account of infant baptism being standard practice in that list is from 130 AD just 30 years after the death of the St. John the Apostle. So how in your view did the church fall into a error that spread throughout the entire Roman Empire and India in just 30 years?

 

[Studious One]

Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture.

Yes, Sola Scriptura is indeed found in Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Word of God makes one perfect... thoroughly furnished. This clearly reveals that the Word of God is all one needs in matters of faith, doctrine and practice.

The assumption of Mary, however, is not taught in Scripture.

 

[WarriorAngel]

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.

Just as the old covenant was circumcision, the new covenant is through baptism...both for infants.

 

[Studious One]

Alright this is obviously going nowhere, basically your saying that infants could not have been in the household, and we're saying there were. So instead I'll get down to the problem all Anabaptists run into sooner or later, history.

We have statements by Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Hippolytus of Rome saying straight up that infant's were baptized, and in the case of Hippolytus actually describing the ceremony of baptism for infants, all of these men lived between 130 and 254 AD. Also keep in mind that this was not merely the case in the Western Church. It occurred all throughout the Eastern and Western Churches. Even the Indian Church which was separated from the other churches extremely early on practices infant baptism.

The earliest account of infant baptism being standard practice in that list is from 130 AD just 30 years after the death of the St. John the Apostle. So how in your view did the church fall into a error that spread throughout the entire Roman Empire and India in just 30 years?

It doesn't matter if you had a signed document by the POTUS saying we are to baptize infants. Neither he, nor the ones you listed above would be correct. Scripture reveals belief in Christ is a necessity prerequisite for baptism. "If thou believest, thou mayest."

Even the Catholic Bible, the Douay Rheims, states that belief is a prerequisite. So, since belief is a prerequisite to baptism as the Douay Rheims states, it stands to reason that neither Paul, nor Peter would have baptized anyone without that one first asserting that he or she indeed believed in Christ.

And infants certainly have no way of telling us what it is they believe until they first learn to talk.

There were no infants baptized in those households mentioned in the Bible.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yes, Sola Scriptura is indeed found in Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Word of God makes one perfect... thoroughly furnished. This clearly reveals that the Word of God is all one needs in matters of faith, doctrine and practice.

The assumption of Mary, however, is not taught in Scripture.

Scripture when mentioned in the NT - was speaking only of the OT.

Even Peter made that distinction when he separated that those who wrest the scriptures AND Epistles of Paul did so to their own destruction.

Wrest = to forcible pull. A use of violent TWISTING.

The OT was the foreshadow to the Gospels.
Those who understood the allegory of the OT - understood the Gospels and how to recognize the Messiah.

The NT epistles were not included in this, but this is what you guys read.

Just showing the fact that the NT became scriptures, again, because the Church chose them.

HOW, because they knew by Tradition, which was the correct teachings, and Tradition gave us the NT. WITHOUT which, there would be no NT - because it was maintained by the Churches and decided by the Churches -
and stated to BE the accurate writings.

YOU must absolutely trust the Church to believe in what you are reading.

 

[WarriorAngel]

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.

Just as the old covenant was circumcision, the new covenant is through baptism...both for infants.

Could you explain this, Studious one?

You have skipped many of my posts to argue against infants being in whole households...though i feel that is a stretch, since people had many children and infants back then.
Not to mention slaves were considered part of households and they had infants too.

BUT why does Paul use circumcision as a direct allegory to baptism...?
Infants received circumcisions... so if infants were not to enter the new covenant as infants did of the old covenant...what was Paul doing??

Explain please.

 

[Thekla]

Yes, Sola Scriptura is indeed found in Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Timothy knew the "Old Testament" (probably the LXX) from his mother Eudiki. Paul indeed recommends these, but note that the word here for "complete" is "fit" but is not the same sense of teleios (which is a deeper sense as in fulfilled).

The Word of God makes one perfect... thoroughly furnished. This clearly reveals that the Word of God is all one needs in matters of faith, doctrine and practice.

The Scriptures do not make us perfect; God does !
The Scriptures are not above God.
Further, Paul says they must be energized in us.
Paul also states that we are to hold fast to the traditions we receive.

[quoteThe assumption of Mary, however, is not taught in Scripture.[/quote]
I agree; the assumption of Mary is not recorded in Scripture.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written much 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....nor even in later historical writings immediately after the Apostles lived and St John still lived...nor even immediately after the death of St John.
In fact never.
For all the writings the Church maintained, never has a formula been made for children of a certain age to have some celebratory rite to enter into baptism.

And we still have the Liturgy of St James the Apostle, we have the rite of the deaconess and to the deacons.
EVERYTHING ever written was kept.

But there is nothing either in scriptures written around 60's AD to even Revelation written aprox 100-110 AD by St John regarding a rite or passage for a child of a certain age or reason to receive Baptism.