The Assumption of Mary

Sarcalogos Deus · Feb 27, 2011

Studious One said:
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.

Honestly, I kinda expected this answer, since it's the answer I've gotten from Protestants who either don't know the history or know straight from the get-go that history is not on their side on this issue.

So let's try something, forget for a moment whether infant baptism is right or wrong. Show me how it could be possible for infant baptism to have spread throughout the entire Roman Empire just 30-40 years after the last Apostle, John, died. Now also think back for a moment to the 80's. Were Baptist churches radically different in doctrine in the 80's than they are now?

So, how could infant baptism have spread so quickly and become universally accepted in that short time, before the invention of any rapid form of communication, unless it was originally practiced by the Apostles?

WarriorAngel · Feb 27, 2011

Studious One said:
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.

You are straining gnats.
Obviously those who could hear them were understanding them.
But not all must say they believe, for those with mental challenges also need baptism.

But the faith of the parents, like the faith of the Jews - did these for the infants. A Jewish infant could not consent to being circumcized...yet the parents made the choice to enter them into the covenant of the Lord.

If you go by your supposition, then you have to assume the Apostles were wrong in stating whole households.

I see no where when referring to the household, that they stopped to state children were excluded.

Acts 16
[31] But they said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. [32] And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. [33] And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

When referring to 'all' it usually means more than a spouse.
It means slaves, spouses, children and infants, and slave children and infants.

Thekla · Feb 27, 2011

Studious One said:
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.

How can this conclusively be stated, that there were no infants in those houesholds ?

So both intellectual acuity and ability to talk are required for baptism ?
Where is such a thing in Scripture ?

Studious One · Feb 27, 2011

Thekla said:
How can this conclusively be stated, that there were no infants in those houesholds ?

So both intellectual acuity and ability to talk are required for baptism ?
Where is such a thing in Scripture ?

I did not say there were no infants in those households, I said there were none baptized.

Scripture indicates that belief in Christ is a prerequisite to Salvation. It clearly states: "If thou believest, thou mayest."

Your argument is not with me, it is with God. Take it up with Him. But I can guarantee one thing, you won't change His mind any more than you have changed mine.

WarriorAngel · Feb 27, 2011

Studious One said:
I did not say there were no infants in those households, I said there were none baptized.

Scripture indicates that belief in Christ is a prerequisite to Salvation. It clearly states: "If thou believest, thou mayest."

Your argument is not with me, it is with God. Take it up with Him. But I can guarantee one thing, you won't change His mind any more than you have changed mine.

What about mentally challenged, or downs syndrome?

It also clearly shows us infants were the ones taken to be circumcised - BY parents to enter the covenant of the Lord.
Baptism is the new covenant and by no mistake did Paul call Baptism the circumcision of the Lord.

Thekla · Feb 28, 2011

Studious One said:
I did not say there were no infants in those households, I said there were none baptized.

Can you demonstrate this from Scripture ?

Scripture indicates that belief in Christ is a prerequisite to Salvation. It clearly states: "If thou believest, thou mayest."

Where is this stated in Christ's command to "Go, baptize ..." ?
Again, this is not said of households.
And can you demonstrate that an infant, or someone who is mentally challenged does not have belief in Christ ?
And can you see hearts to guarantee that those who do claim belief actually have it ?

Your argument is not with me, it is with God. Take it up with Him. But I can guarantee one thing, you won't change His mind any more than you have changed mine.

I am not defying Christ's command, nor am I twisting the Scripture to make pistis = intellect.

Studious One · Feb 28, 2011

addo said:
Interesting. I wondered the same thing too. I think Catholics place too much emphasis on Mary.

But to the OP, what do you think of the supposed appearence of Mary at Fatima?

One need only look at the requests and promises given by the apparition to know that the apparition was not of God.

From what I read in the promises of the rosary, Mary is self-centered, wanting all the credit for saving mankind. For instance:

Promise #1. Whosoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary shall receive signal graces.

Faithfully serve who? Not God, not Jesus, but Mary. And if they faithfully serve her, they will receive some special graces.

Promise #2. I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.

Here, Mary promises to be the protector of those who recite the rosary. (The majority of the rosary is directed at, guess who?..... Mary.

Yet the Word of God tells us that God's truth is our protection.... not Mary.

Promise #3. The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin and defeat heresies.

Again, since the rosary is mainly directed toward Mary, (53 times she is addressed in it) one can see her promise to save someone from hell.

Of course, the Bible reveals that the only way to avoid hell is by faith in Jesus Christ... not faith in Mary, not reciting the rosary.

Now, I will only address one more of these promises...

Promise #5 The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary shall not perish.

Notice here that Mary admits that the rosary is all about people dedicating themselves to her and promises that if they are dedicated to her, they will not perish.

God's Word tells us that if we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we will be saved, yet this self-centered, worship stealing Mary tells people otherwise. One need not believe on Jesus Christ, (according to Mary) one only need worship Mary via the rosary.

It is not the Mother of Jesus that appeared to the youth at Fatima, it is an evil woman who deceived many into believing that she was His mother. The real mother of Jesus would not seek her own as the Fatima apparition does.

MamaZ · Feb 28, 2011

Studious One said:
One need only look at the requests and promises given by the apparition to know that the apparition was not of God.

From what I read in the promises of the rosary, Mary is self-centered, wanting all the credit for saving mankind. For instance:

Promise #1. Whosoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary shall receive signal graces.

Faithfully serve who? Not God, not Jesus, but Mary. And if they faithfully serve her, they will receive some special graces.

Promise #2. I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.

Here, Mary promises to be the protector of those who recite the rosary. (The majority of the rosary is directed at, guess who?..... Mary.

Yet the Word of God tells us that God's truth is our protection.... not Mary.

Promise #3. The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin and defeat heresies.

Again, since the rosary is mainly directed toward Mary, (53 times she is addressed in it) one can see her promise to save someone from hell.

Of course, the Bible reveals that the only way to avoid hell is by faith in Jesus Christ... not faith in Mary, not reciting the rosary.

Now, I will only address one more of these promises...

Promise #5 The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary shall not perish.

Notice here that Mary admits that the rosary is all about people dedicating themselves to her and promises that if they are dedicated to her, they will not perish.

God's Word tells us that if we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we will be saved, yet this self-centered, worship stealing Mary tells people otherwise. One need not believe on Jesus Christ, (according to Mary) one only need worship Mary via the rosary.

It is not the Mother of Jesus that appeared to the youth at Fatima, it is an evil woman who deceived many into believing that she was His mother. The real mother of Jesus would not seek her own as the Fatima apparition does.

DiligentlySeekingGod · Feb 28, 2011

I second that!

Zeek · Feb 28, 2011

I third that.

This isn't a Catholic vs Protestant thing...it is a quest for the truth, and those in authority who have given their blessing to these apparitions and their messages will be held responsible by the L-rd, for causing Dear Ones to be deceived.

WAKE UP CHURCH.

Dylan Michael · Feb 28, 2011

Zazal said:
I third that.

This isn't a Catholic vs Protestant thing...it is a quest for the truth, and those in authority who have given their blessing to these apparitions and their messages will be held responsible by the L-rd, for causing Dear Ones to be deceived.

WAKE UP CHURCH.

The Church is awake.

Thekla · Feb 28, 2011

Dylan Michael said:
The Church is awake.

Including those shown in Revelation who are under the altar

DArceri · Mar 1, 2011

Thekla said:
Including those shown in Revelation who are under the altar

Hmmm....Interesting you should bring this up...Jesus spoke of being baptised (EMERSED) into suffering and death. Those under the alter are those who are going to be baptised into suffering and death just as Jesus was (and His apostles were destined for through FAITH in Christ as Lord and Savior). Note, it is a spiritual baptism that saves since it requires FAITH in Christ alone (not Mary)!!!! Listen, many are water baptised at birth, including Hitler. It takes a spiritual baptism, ie. being born again, to obtain the shield of faith, the Armor of God that is spoken of in Ephesians 6, to be persecuted and die for Christ. Note what Jesus tells James and John about entering His Kingdom in Mark 10:

Mark 10:35-40:
35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”
36 “What do you want me to do for you?” He asked.
37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”
38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”
39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”

ONE FINAL THOUGHT, the HOLY SPIRIT's main purpose is to reveal who the CHRIST is, not Mary.... The Holy Spirit reveals who the SON is, and the Son reveals who the FATHER is. Churches who focus on extra-biblical mystical apparations or revelations are only setting themselves up for the great deceptions that will take place at the end times, for there discernment will have been greatly compromised....."For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.” (Matthew 24:23-26)

.

xfisherman · Mar 1, 2011

Can one be saved by venerating her?

DiligentlySeekingGod · Mar 1, 2011

Dylan Michael · Mar 1, 2011

xfisherman said:
Can one be saved by venerating her?

No, but that's not the point.

MamaZ · Mar 1, 2011

what good can ever come from venerating a human being such as Mary is?

Thekla · Mar 1, 2011

MamaZ said:
what good can ever come from venerating a human being such as Mary is?

Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Romans 13:17

Brethren, be followers (imitators) together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. Phil 3:17

(Paul repeatedly exhorts us to imitate those who walk in Christ.
Mary indeed is one such example.)

sheina · Mar 1, 2011

Thekla said:
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Romans 13:17

Brethren, be followers (imitators) together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. Phil 3:17

(Paul repeatedly exhorts us to imitate those who walk in Christ.
Mary indeed is one such example.)

The Apostle Paul was NOT advocating "venerating" anybody. The Apostle Paul was continually burdened about the danger of false teaching and he was warning believers that many unregenerate false teachers would creep into the churches and would deceive many. This passage has NOTHING to do with Mary. From Romans thru Revelation, there is NO mention of Mary.

DiligentlySeekingGod · Mar 1, 2011

Dylan Michael said:
No, but that's not the point.

So, what exactly is the point?

The Assumption of Mary

Welch Ein Mensch!

I close my eyes and see you smile

Thekla

Guest

Studious One

Guest

I close my eyes and see you smile

Thekla

Guest

Studious One

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

DiligentlySeekingGod

Guest

Follower of Messiah, Israel advocate and Zionist

Senior Veteran

Thekla

Guest

Exercise daily -- walk with the Lord.

Newbie

DiligentlySeekingGod

Guest

Senior Veteran

MamaZ

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Born Crucified

DiligentlySeekingGod

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency