Posted on 04/27/2012 6:36:28 PM PDT by Salvation
What a cruel doctrine.
No, this is NOT an invitation to a game of Scriptural Jeopardy.
Exactly. None of that is Biblical.
If my memory is correct, did not in the Acts of the Apostles, and I am a Catholic myself, was not whole families baptized? That had to include infants as well.
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize,58 by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59
1 peter 21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God* for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
I really wish that prots would start reading the Bible, even once in a while would help them.
There’s no need to make offensive generalizations like you did - it doesn’t help the discussion.
It’s not as cut and dry as you make it seem. There are some Biblical verses that seem to imply that water baptism is required for salvation, but there are many other verses that speak of salvation with no mention of water baptism. The key is to understand the context of the verses in question.
In the verse you posted, we see that water is seen as a type of instrument for salvation, and was compared to the water in the flood, which “saved” Noah. Of course, the water itself didn’t save Noah, but the ark, which is a figure for Christ. In the same way, our salvation comes from Christ, and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Peter is comparing the water in baptism to the water in the flood, but in both cases, the water itself really isn’t critical piece of salvation. It is the repentant heart; trust in God, and the Holy Spirit, that brings salvation.
God: So sorry but you were not Baptized, so you can’t come in.
Few hours old infant: Well, you must know, being that You Know and See everything that I had a pretty rough birth and things got pretty frantic between my delivery and being rushed into the NICU. You do know that I was rushed to the NICU and died before my parents even had a chance to hold me live alone Baptize me, don’t you?
God: Well I do have rules.
Few hours old infant: So you are condemning me to Hell because of a technicality?
God: Yep. That’s how I roll.
;(
It is a very dangerous thing to try to establish a general rule from an exception, particularly since you are not a thief dying on a cross next to Jesus.
Why is it so difficult for those who require “acceptance” of Jesus to “accept” (believe and trust) those things which Jesus has commanded, namely Baptism and Eucharist?
If “acceptance” depends on my intellectual assent or fervent emotions then “my” acceptance will always be subject to question and found wanting. If on the other hand I simply trust and believe that Jesus’s word accomplishes that for which He sends it that can never be found wanting.
I know your Protestant semi-literate pastor tells you so. But you don't have to stay ignorant. Read the Bible every now and then:
baptism being of the like [water] form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21)
You're nailed to something too?
The Church does not teach that he is. St. Augustine taught that such child attains the state of greatest possible natural happiness after death. A baptized child attains beatific vision: a state of supernatural happiness. Does the former sound like hell to you? At any rate, even St. Augustine limbo hypothesis is not a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
A child needs to be baptized in obedience to the commandment of Christ clearly given in the Bible (Mark 16:16) and out of love for the child whom you want to be near Christ forever, not out of fear of a Calvinist cruel god that only exists in Calvin's sick imagination.
Baptism Saves you. Period, that is exactly what the Bible says.
As far as “offensive generalizations” You might make that exact same comment to the non Catholic I replied to. He goes out of his way to insult Catholics in every thread he can.
You can believe whatever you want, but one who reads the Bible as it is written, and without Protestant obfuscations would see in Noah a figure of Christ, in the ark, a figure of the Catholic Church, and in the flood the baptismal water. You enter the Church through baptism in order to be saved, as St. Peter explains in that verse. "Good conscience" is indeed obtained through baptism, which washes off all preexisting to the baptism sin by the Resurrected Christ.
The Good Thief expressed remorse and received a Baptism of Desire.
Have you ever read about a Baptism of Blood?
A Baptism of Desire?
Most of us are familiar with a Baptism of water and the Holy Spirit.
Great post.
I grabbed my son out of an oxygen tent when he was a baby, took him to the hospital sink in the room. Turned on the water and baptized him, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
I’ve lived this. It’s not cruel to baptize your own child, is it?
Yes, entire families, including children and babies were baptized. The household of Lydia is one example from St. Paul.
do you remember the definition of Limbo, where babies would go?
It’s not called Limbo any longer, but the unbaptized children are in the presence of God, but in a different place/level than those who were baptized.
“There are many mansions in my Father’s house.”
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.