Posted on 10/01/2009 6:29:50 AM PDT by NYer
Offer (or find) the kids a ride.
“The baby being circumcised did not have the capacity to understand the Covenant. What if later on he rejected God?”
Indeed, what if he later rejected God? Would he then be excused from the conditional curses of the covenant? Or was he bound by them whether he believed or not? Were only the circumcised carried away into captivity?
“In the Acts of the Apostles you find stories of entire households being baptised. Those households almost certainly contained infants, or toddlers.”
Yes, households and families were baptized, but you are still assuming that these households included infants or toddlers. The Scripture is not explicit about this, which I guess is why people are still debating it!
I know an older woman who was “saved” but she has never been baptized because she has a thing about being submerged in water. Of course she’s not Catholic. I always found that odd. Her pastor is okay with it.
I get that same answer from non-Catholics. I also hear “I’m forgiven for all of my sins before I commit them”.
Did you even read what I posted? I never said “if only I have done everything right!” Please don’t put incorrect words in my mouth. I said it depends on God’s Grace alone. Period. I could not have been more clear.
By the way, I’m female. Feel free to look at my profile. :0)
That just seems a tad bit rude and pointless.
First of all, samiam1972 is a SHE (and a perpetually pregnant she at that).
Secondly, it is considered the norm, especially on the Religion Forum, to ping a person if you are going to use their name.
I wonder how many of the YOPIOS crowd have ever actually considered how the passage below fits into their solely intellectual approach to Salvation:
31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
-- Matthew 25:31-46
For the record, I find it amusing that so many on this thread want to make this issue about the Catholic Church and fail to realize that the rejection of infant Baptism puts them at odds with nearly all of mainline Protestantism.
I find this especially amusing when I consider that just a few weeks ago some of these same FReepers were arguing that aborted babies are definitely damned to Hell because they've never been Baptized.
We are told that it is proper to bring infants to Jesus Christ and that is EXACTLY what Baptism is:
15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them.
16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child, shall not enter into it.
-- Luke 18:15-17
“But a Catholic is obligated to baptise the baby. It is a matter of spiritual care-taking.
It is the spiritual parallel to feeding, bathing, clothing, and loving the child. In fact, it is the expression of it.”
What of Catholics who have their babies baptized simply because they feel it’s an obligation or tradition, and don’t contribute to the child’s spiritual upbringing in any significant way after that? I know “Catholics” who baptized their children, but that was one of the rare instances the kids ever saw the inside of a church. How does the baptism of those children amount to anything?
The YOPIOS crowd will NEVER understand this. As far as they are concerned if a person says they accept Christ they are saved and NOTHING can undo that. If the words, "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior" EVER passed the lips of Hitler, then he is in Heaven laughing at his millions of victims who never uttered the phrase.
Mad Dawg put it perfectly yesterday:
Also, just as the rule is that one must always exploit any ambiguity of expression to put one's opponent in the worst possible light (the goal not being truth but rather rhetorical domination) so one must use the extravagant and metaphorical language of praise as though it were the academically precise language of a theological treatise.
The errors here are legion and, alas, I am busy.
What parent would deny their children the grace of God at the earliest possible convenience? What parent wouldn't pray for his children? If you pray, why wouldn't you baptize? And if baptism were only a sign, what devoted parent would resist joyfully making it?
They have, at the very least, taken the single most important step. The child's soul has been cleansed of original sin and imbued with graces.
I don't understand why the original poster didn't understand that there are more religions represented here on FR than Catholicism. The original post makes it sound like they assume FR is an "only Catholic" site. There are many definitions of "Baptism".
Can you show me where it says that in the Bible?
Once saved, always saved? Where is that in the Bible?
“I wonder how many of the YOPIOS crowd have ever actually considered how the passage below fits into their solely intellectual approach to Salvation:”
The passage you quote clearly refers to the White Throne judgment after the second resurrection. Those who are saved by Grace will already be sitting in thrones of judgment over the nations as well, will they not? Why do you suggest they will be subject to this judgment as well?
Did you toss out John 3:3-5?
“A baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a sacrament that brings grace from God at his behest. The very act is a demonstration of faith.”
Yes but a demonstration of whose faith? Certainly not the infant’s, so you must mean the faith of the parents. So you think that through your faith you can impart God’s grace to someone without their involvement?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.