Posted on 06/15/2014 12:52:19 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Actually the Greek word baptizo means to dip, submerge, to immerse according to strongs and word helps. So the catholic version of sprinkling is not correct.
You gotta go under the water.
I asked if it was okay just to get wet up to your waist. Nope full immersion. IO said okay how about up to the shoulders. Nope the Head has to get wet he said.
My reply was: So the Catholics are right just getting the head wet.
On a serious note. Read the Didache, it tells of the various accepted methods.
And the thief on the cross proves that it doesn't.
The story has been 100% debunked. Catholic-hating liberal media. Those sisters did all they could for those children and none were thrown in a septic tank. But. please don’t let the truth get in your way
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3166302/posts
And Roman Catholics, just like Mormons, have additional books that they add to the scriptures with...
Wrong, Protestants have removed books from the Bible. Basically to save money.
Who was Jesus speaking too there??? JEWS! He was telling them, as John the Baptist did, to Repent and be Baptized. That was the thing being discussed here. Not our believe on FAITH. We the church are to believe on faith. Nothing else is required. Paul makes it clear, FAITH and FAITH alone. Believe in what Jesus did on the cross. That is ours. The church’s. Faith in Jesus Christ. No works. Faith. Our works come AFTER we are saved. What we do after we are SAVED. Baptism is not part of it. This was Jewish. Christ came to fulfill the OT covenant to the Jews. Not to the church. As he told his Disciples, go not to the Samaritans or Gentiles, but the lost sheep of Israel. This is Jewish here in the line of Scripture you sent me. Not church.
You are the one that is wrong. See what I just posted to the person who sent me a reply. He sent what Christ said. That was Jewish, not church. Believe what you might. Baptism IS NOT a requirement of our salvation. FAITH AND FAITH ALONE is all that is required. Paul makes this clear as a bell in his writings in the NT. Baptism is not a requirement. Believe what you might.
When I was baptised Catholic at the Saturday Easter Mass, 2008, it was the most beautiful ceremony in the world. The Church had one of the biggest baptismal fonts I have ever seen. I put on a white gown to signify purity, stepped in the font and Father O’Leary placed his hand on the back of my head and dunked me three times. “I baptise you in the name of the Father (dunk), Son (dunk), and Holy Spirit (dunk). Babies and young children had water sprinkled on their head.
The amount of water used is up to the priest. Some pour water on the head of the one being baptised. Father O’Leary really gets into it and turns into John The Baptist!
Some Protestants may not be familiar with these two kinds of Baptism:
Baptism of Desire — someone on their deathbed
Baptism of Blood — typical of martyrs.
The Good Thief experienced both of these.
This is the perfect example of teaching a false doctrine (baptismal regeneration) and then having to create another false doctrine to answer the issues with the first one.
If baptism was required then the thief on the cross would not have been saved.
Why are you doubting the words of Jesus?
The ordinary magisterium of the Church has openly taught the three-fold Baptism (water, desire and blood) since the earliest days of the Church, and never has this teaching ever been condemned by the Catholic Church throughout the entire history of the Church.
http://www.catholicessentials.net/baptismofdesire.htm
You really are missing the point aren't you. Jesus said the thief on the cross was saved. What did he do? He acknowledged Jesus as the Christ ... He repented.
He was not baptized. So you have an example of a person in scripture which was saved but not baptized ... therefore baptism is not required for salvation. If you find one counterexample to a theory, the theory is not valid.
QED
And that was the point of my original post ...
No need to read the didache when we have the bible...It's anything but the bible for your religion...
Anyone that claims to be a Christian and thinks he does not need to be baptised BY WATER in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, has a problem. Or was Jesus just blabbing on and didn’t really mean it when he said to go out to all nations and baptise in the NAME OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT! Some 1,500 years before radicals broke away from the church and have been trying ever since to to manglee and twist the Bible around to make it mean what they want it to say instead of what God said! Does not work that way!
And faith without works IS DEAD! Try reading James. Yes the same James that Martin Luther called a liar and tried to expunge his words from scripture!
100% "debunked"?
Not quite.
Calling the story a "hoax" is error itself.
The previous headlines were misleading and seeming greatly exaggerated -- but -- there are still grounds for considering that what was opened up by a pair of witnesses in 1975, and then further witnessed by many others -- including a Catholic priest who said prayers over the bones before the location was backfilled --- was once quite possibly used as a septic tank, as early maps do indicate there was once a sewage tank very near to where the still-living witness says he and another moved a a flat stone approximately 2 ft X 4 ft and saw bones (and skulls) of many children.
The idea that an old and likely to have been disused "septic tank" for receptacle of some number of bodies of those who died while at that particular "mother and baby home" has been far from "debunked" or disproved, for there is still much which has not been clarified, although it is possible that there was some other underground structure or hollow as it were, that was utilized.
For all we know there could have been root cellar there also, along with a septic tank not too far away, as in within that same walled area, which was then used by the nuns as place to of crypt for these "unbaptized" babies who could not be buried in otherwise "Catholic" cemeteries. BOTH some other underground area, AND the old sewage tank (as indicated on some maps as having been there -- along with old timer's among the locals agreeing that there had always been talk og one being at that portion of the property) could have at different times been used as "crypt".
What is entirely lacking (speaking of "truth") is any proof whatsoever that there was at any time a purpose-built burial crypt at the location or on the property at all.
What was found in 2012 were graves accidentally uncovered along North side perimeter of the property which were then more formally investigated in archeological fashion and dated to the "work house" days of the mid-to-later 19th century.
So far --- I'm not impressed on iota that YOU know "truth" concerning the whole affair, for that has yet to be fully established, which makes it impossible for you to speak of "truth", in this regard.
I'm not going to get in to all the different articles I myself have read concerning the issue, but the one link which you provided as some evidence of debunking -- falls far short of doing you what you suggest that it does, for it relies upon conjecture rather than proof --- even more so than the local woman Corless who grew up in that town -- and had attended school with some of these so-called "Home Babies" who were very much indeed looked down upon by most all -- including the nuns themselves, according to her testimony and that which can otherwise be pieced together.
Those poor unfortunate souls born to mothers out of wedlock were considered "dirty" by the culture and society in Ireland of that era, and it's attitudes at that time and place towards women having children outside of marriage -- with THAT attitude spilling over onto the otherwise innocent children themselves, regardless of any of the actual "care" given them by those same nuns.
Once again a simple question: How do you know they were unbaptized? Seriously How do you and every other prot here "know" this?
My wife took her nursing degree at a Catholic hospital in upstate New York. During her Pedes rotation there was a child that died shortly after birth, but that child received a baptism from the nuns in attendance. I was also baptized at birth due to complications, there is no written record of that baptism but my father witnessed it.
When one of my nieces was born she was a still birth but the priest told my sister my niece could receive a Christian burial in a Catholic cemetery because of baptism of desire.
So please tell me how can you all be so gosh darn sure they weren't baptized?
And when no else wanted them these nuns took them in and cared for them. And the ones that died were properly buried. The septic tank story is a bunch of garbage and only the most die-hard Catholic-haters would believe a word of it.
All the thief on the cross proves is that Jesus could cleanse that man of his sins. What Jesus did for the thief he did not do for us. He took the thief’s sins away before He died. Everyone coming after the cross must come into contact with the blood of Christ Jesus through baptism.
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.