Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Butterbean on July 12, 2009, 01:10:20 PM
-
...Man de-baptises himself
A man has asked to be 'de-baptised', saying that he was too young to decide his religion at the age of five months.
John Hunt, 56, says that he wants his 1953 baptism at the St Jude and St Aidan parish church in the Southwark diocese, south London, cancelled because he was not consulted and does not believe in God.
He decided to have his baptism revoked after reading about a gay man in Spain, Mañuel Blat, who won a court ruling under Spanish data protection legislation that he could have the record of his baptism stricken from the baptismal register.
Mr Hunt, a member of OutRage!, has obtained a de-baptism certificate from the National Secular Society, which reads: “I, John Geoffrey Hunt, having been subjected to the rite of Christian baptism in infancy hereby publicly revoke any implications of that rite.
“I reject all its creeds and other such superstitions in particular the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed of original sin.”
He paid £60 to post it in the London Gazette and the London diocese has agreed to amend his baptism notes with the notice.
However, he has been told that he cannot have his baptism revoked as it is a "historical record".
The Bishop of Croydon, the Rt Rev Nick Baines, told the Daily Telegraph: "Whether we agree whether it should have happened or not is a different matter.
"But it's a bit like trying to expunge Trotsky from the photos. You can't remove from the record something that actually happened."
http://www.pinknews.uk.co/news/articles/2005-11673.html
Others are being "de-baptized" as well:
Following atheist trend, Britons seek 'de-baptism'
Do you disagree with your parents over religion?
In Britain, some people clearly do: more than 100,000 Britons have recently downloaded "certificates of de-baptism" from the Internet to renounce their Christian faith.
The initiative launched by a group called the National Secular Society (NSS) follows atheist campaigns here and elsewhere, including a London bus poster which triggered protests by proclaiming, "There's probably no God."
"We now produce a certificate on parchment and we have sold 1,500 units at three pounds (4.35 dollars, 3.20 euros) a pop," said NSS president Terry Sanderson, 58.
John Hunt, a 58-year-old from London and one of the first to try to be "de-baptised," held that he was too young to make any decision when he was christened at five months old.
The male nurse said he approached the Church of England to ask it to remove his name.
"They said they had sought legal advice and that I should place an announcement in the London Gazette," said Hunt, referring to one of the official journals of record of the British government.
So that's what he did -- his notice of renouncement was published in the Gazette in May 2008 and other Britons have followed suit.
Michael Evans, 66, branded baptising children as "a form of child abuse" -- and said that when he complained to the church where he was christened he was told to contact the European Court of Human Rights.
more
http://www.expatica.com/fr/life-in-france/lifestyle/Following-atheist-trend_-Britons-seek_de_baptism_-_14067.html?ppager=0
-
Complete waste of time.
-
Complete waste of time.
I agree
I'm wondering if we think so for the same reason
-
...Man de-baptises himself
A man has asked to be 'de-baptised', saying that he was too young to decide his religion at the age of five months.
John Hunt, 56, says that he wants his 1953 baptism at the St Jude and St Aidan parish church in the Southwark diocese, south London, cancelled because he was not consulted and does not believe in God.
He decided to have his baptism revoked after reading about a gay man in Spain, Mañuel Blat, who won a court ruling under Spanish data protection legislation that he could have the record of his baptism stricken from the baptismal register.
Mr Hunt, a member of OutRage!, has obtained a de-baptism certificate from the National Secular Society, which reads: “I, John Geoffrey Hunt, having been subjected to the rite of Christian baptism in infancy hereby publicly revoke any implications of that rite.
“I reject all its creeds and other such superstitions in particular the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed of original sin.”
He paid £60 to post it in the London Gazette and the London diocese has agreed to amend his baptism notes with the notice.
However, he has been told that he cannot have his baptism revoked as it is a "historical record".
The Bishop of Croydon, the Rt Rev Nick Baines, told the Daily Telegraph: "Whether we agree whether it should have happened or not is a different matter.
"But it's a bit like trying to expunge Trotsky from the photos. You can't remove from the record something that actually happened."
http://www.pinknews.uk.co/news/articles/2005-11673.html
Others are being "de-baptized" as well:
Following atheist trend, Britons seek 'de-baptism'
Do you disagree with your parents over religion?
In Britain, some people clearly do: more than 100,000 Britons have recently downloaded "certificates of de-baptism" from the Internet to renounce their Christian faith.
The initiative launched by a group called the National Secular Society (NSS) follows atheist campaigns here and elsewhere, including a London bus poster which triggered protests by proclaiming, "There's probably no God."
"We now produce a certificate on parchment and we have sold 1,500 units at three pounds (4.35 dollars, 3.20 euros) a pop," said NSS president Terry Sanderson, 58.
John Hunt, a 58-year-old from London and one of the first to try to be "de-baptised," held that he was too young to make any decision when he was christened at five months old.
The male nurse said he approached the Church of England to ask it to remove his name.
"They said they had sought legal advice and that I should place an announcement in the London Gazette," said Hunt, referring to one of the official journals of record of the British government.
So that's what he did -- his notice of renouncement was published in the Gazette in May 2008 and other Britons have followed suit.
Michael Evans, 66, branded baptising children as "a form of child abuse" -- and said that when he complained to the church where he was christened he was told to contact the European Court of Human Rights.
more
http://www.expatica.com/fr/life-in-france/lifestyle/Following-atheist-trend_-Britons-seek_de_baptism_-_14067.html?ppager=0
How do you get "de-baptized", have someone dunk you in a tank of sand?
Besides, as far as the baptismal process goes (at least in our church), the whole thing is voluntary. That is, someone has to decide that he/she wants to be baptized. From there, they go through Bible study with the elders of the church and focus on the basics of the faith. This usually takes several weeks. It is from there that they go through and officially get dunked in the "watery grave".
More often than not, new baptismal candidates invite their friends and family to witness the ceremony, as it is a big step for them to accept the Lord as their Savior. Heck, we usually have lunch or some sort of banquet for the newly-baptized members.
The point, of course, is that this a process, a gesture done only after great consideration and Bible study. It isn't something done to a kid or a baby, who has no idea what's happening (at least, that's not the way it's supposed to be done).
As the saying goes, "God has no grandchildren". Your parents can't decide to accept Christ on your behalf; and you can't do so on behalf of your children.
-
How do you get "de-baptized", have someone dunk you in a tank of sank?
Besides, as far as the baptismal process goes (at least in our church), the whole thing is voluntary. That is, someone has to decide that he/she wants to be baptized. From there, they go through Bible study with the elders of the church and focus on the basics of the faith. This usually takes several weeks. It is from there that they go through and officially get dunked in the "watery grave".
More often than not, new baptismal candidates invite their friends and family to witness the ceremony, as it is a big step for them to accept the Lord as their Savior. Heck, we usually have lunch or some sort of banquet for the newly-baptized members.
The point, of course, is that this a process, a gesture done only after great consideration and Bible study. It isn't something done to a kid or a baby, who has no idea what's happening (at least, that's not the way it's supposed to be done).
As the saying goes, "God has no grandchildren". Your parents can't decide to accept Christ on your behalf; and you can't do so on behalf of your children.
Yeah as far as I know, the bible doesn't support any infant baptism...... and water baptism does not save. Only "faith through grace and not of works so that no one can boast" Eph 2:8,9.
I see baptism as an outright sign of someone who is already a believer who desires to follow Christ/to live in a way pleasing to Him.
So these people are spending time and money to "reverse" something that didn't do anything in the first place. ....even if they did believe it did something.....but they don't right ??? in the first place :-\
-
Let me get this straight: These logical and rational atheists are SOOOOOOOOOOO intellectually sound and “enlightened”, that their psyche gets bruised by having water sprinkled on them, mere months removed from the womb (an event they DON’T EVEN REMEMBER).
“Three drops of water hit my head, and someone mentioned the name of Jesus Christ, when I was in diapers. OOOOOOHHHH, THE HUMANITY!!!!”
And they call us nuts!!
-
De baptize...good lord...thats going a bit overboard with the indignation no :-\
next on teh ajenda i'm gonna officially demuslamize myself my "re-heading" someone... ;D
k..i think its funny >:(
-
...water baptism does not save. Only "faith through grace and not of works so that no one can boast" Eph 2:8,9.
I see baptism as an outright sign of someone who is already a believer who desires to follow Christ/to live in a way pleasing to Him.
I liken baptism to wearing a wedding ring; You wear it to show the world you are married but if you take it off does't mean you are not married.
HM
-
I liken baptism to wearing a wedding ring; You wear it to show the world you are married but if you take it off does't mean you are not married.
HM
But your hair is about to get dry some day, so who would know you're baptized to begin with? Regardless, it is silly to get "de-baptized."
As a raised Catholic and now atheist, should I also get debaptized, 'unconfirm,' and take back all of the confessions from the priests? No. That's stupid.
-
I might have to buy some round crackers and donate them to Catholic churches now.
-
But your hair is about to get dry some day, so who would know you're baptized to begin with? Regardless, it is silly to get "de-baptized."
As a raised Catholic and now atheist, should I also get debaptized, 'unconfirm,' and take back all of the confessions from the priests? No. That's stupid.
Yeah, because those didn't do anything anyway.
I might have to buy some round crackers and donate them to Catholic churches now.
I took communion in a Catholic church once. I wasn't supposed to because I'm not Catholic but I was a rebel ::) ;D anyway, it tasted like styrofoam :-X
-
As a raised Catholic and now atheist, should I also get debaptized, 'unconfirm,' and take back all of the confessions from the priests? No. That's stupid.
That's not what I was talking about but I agree with you!
-
Yeah, because those didn't do anything anyway.
I took communion in a Catholic church once. I wasn't supposed to because I'm not Catholic but I was a rebel ::) ;D anyway, it tasted like styrofoam :-X
if you were a real Catholic that wafer would have turned into the body of christ
-
if you were a real Catholic that wafer would have turned into the body of christ
We were just a bunch of cannibals.
The Catholics have got to be the most ridiculous of all the Christian sects. Kneel, stand, sit, pray, genuflect.... lol, I almost forgot about the genuflecting part.
-
I was baptised and am an atheist. I wouldn't be de-baptised because I realise how pointless splashing water on my forehead is and how little it obviously achieves.
-
:)
U.S. Atheists Reportedly Using Hair Dryers to 'De-Baptize'
Published July 17, 2010
American atheists lined up to be "de-baptized" in a ritual using a hair dryer, according to a report Friday on U.S. late-night news program "Nightline."
Leading atheist Edwin Kagin blasted his fellow non-believers with the hair dryer to symbolically dry up the holy water sprinkled on their heads in days past. The styling tool was emblazoned with a label reading "Reason and Truth."
Kagin believes parents are wrong to baptize their children before they are able to make their own choices, even slamming some religious eduction as "child abuse." He said the blast of hot air was a way for adults to undo what their parents had done.
"I was baptized Catholic. I don't remember any of it at all," said 24-year-old Cambridge Boxterman. "According to my mother, I screamed like a banshee ... so you can see that even as a young child I didn't want to be baptized. It's not fair. I was born atheist, and they were forcing me to become Catholic."
Kagin doned a monk's robe and said a few mock-Latin phrases before inviting those wishing to be de-baptized to "come forward now and receive the spirit of hot air that taketh away the stigma and taketh away the remnants of the stain of baptismal water."
Ironically, Kagin's own son became a fundamentalist Christian minister after having "a personal revelation in Jesus Christ."
"One wonders where they went wrong," he chuckled to the TV show.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/17/atheists-reportedly-using-hair-dryers-baptize/?test=latestnews
-
:)
U.S. Atheists Reportedly Using Hair Dryers to 'De-Baptize'
Published July 17, 2010
American atheists lined up to be "de-baptized" in a ritual using a hair dryer, according to a report Friday on U.S. late-night news program "Nightline."
Leading atheist Edwin Kagin blasted his fellow non-believers with the hair dryer to symbolically dry up the holy water sprinkled on their heads in days past. The styling tool was emblazoned with a label reading "Reason and Truth."
Kagin believes parents are wrong to baptize their children before they are able to make their own choices, even slamming some religious eduction as "child abuse." He said the blast of hot air was a way for adults to undo what their parents had done.
"I was baptized Catholic. I don't remember any of it at all," said 24-year-old Cambridge Boxterman. "According to my mother, I screamed like a banshee ... so you can see that even as a young child I didn't want to be baptized. It's not fair. I was born atheist, and they were forcing me to become Catholic."
Kagin doned a monk's robe and said a few mock-Latin phrases before inviting those wishing to be de-baptized to "come forward now and receive the spirit of hot air that taketh away the stigma and taketh away the remnants of the stain of baptismal water."
Ironically, Kagin's own son became a fundamentalist Christian minister after having "a personal revelation in Jesus Christ."
"One wonders where they went wrong," he chuckled to the TV show.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/17/atheists-reportedly-using-hair-dryers-baptize/?test=latestnews
I just read this stupid mess about an hour ago. Some of these atheists have to be the most cracked-in-the-head folks I've ever seen. All this drama, over someone they claim doesn't even exist.
And they call Christians nuts!???
With that said, the child baptism (or at least, infant baptism thing) is ridiculous. I'll give Kagan that. But, even more ridiculous is his citing as proof that he didn't want to be baptized, his screaming like a banshee.
HEY EINSTEIN!!! You were a BABY!! Babies scream for just about anything. My son screams as I'm changing his diaper. Is that proof that he wants to have a soiled Pamper stuck to his butt, in perpetuity. And, these folks are supposed to be the "smart", "enlightened" folks? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
In case these Rhodes scholars hadn't realized it yet, sprinking water on a baby no more makes him a Christian than dusting protein powder on my head makes me Mr. Olympia. Most people who get baptized HAVE TO REQUEST BAPTISM, from their pastor and deacons. And, that's followed by WEEKS of intense Bible study and preparation.
Now I see why the verse, "thinking themselves wise, they became fools" applies to a number of atheists.
-
I was baptised and am an atheist. I wouldn't be de-baptised because I realise how pointless splashing water on my forehead is and how little it obviously achieves.
Actually, you weren't baptized. As stated earlier, baptism is a voluntary thing, as clearly stated in Scripture. This article that Beach Bum posted does make one good point. Most ardent atheists are former Catholics. A reason for that, I believe, is the Catholic Church's obsession with holding to a bunch of mess that has NO BASIS in Scripture, whatsoever (infant baptism, being among the least of this).
-
...Man de-baptises himself
A man has asked to be 'de-baptised', saying that he was too young to decide his religion at the age of five months.
he's an idiot....
IF he doesn't believe in his religion then baptasim or no baptasim...it wouldn't matter AT ALL..since he does not believe in it anyways.
the FACT that he is getting de-pabtised shows to prove that he does believe in it....otherwise..why would he bother?
-
this is retarded
-
Specific Biblical References?
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
I still don't see specific scriptural references encouraging infant baptism?
My buddy's household at one point consisted of her, her husband, his father, and 2 adult sons.
-
Huh? So um, what if we now go all crazy for a sec here and assume that other households besides your buddy and yours ofcorse, actualy do have infants?
Please just read it again Stella, this time with your head out of the sand.
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
Were Only Adults Baptized?
Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written 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.
Specific Biblical References?
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.
It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16). [/u]
Not a word of what you just posted gives any instruction towards infant baptism. As for children, yes, they can be baptized (I was baptized at 10 or 11). But, that was a conscious decision. And I had to take baptismal classes for my age group BEFORE the ceremony took place.
Babies can't do that.
-
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
Oh an I suppose households these days don't have infants too ::)
If there were exceptions to infants in a household Jesus would of made that clear. I'm pretty sure he knew his word would be recorded and lived by.
Next False accusation of the Roman Catholic Church please..
It says they brought them to Him to have them touch them.
Are you saying that Jesus baptized these babies in water?
Sizwe, do you believe that infant baptism in water results in them being saved?
-
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
Oh an I suppose households these days don't have infants too ::)
If there were exceptions to infants in a household Jesus would of made that clear. I'm pretty sure he knew his word would be recorded and lived by.
Next False accusation of the Roman Catholic Church please..
The passage you quoted doesn't talk about Jesus baptizing babies.
I view baptism as a conscience and public decision made by someone to follow Christ. As McWay said, babies can't do that.
-
The Lords grace extends to infants.
Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. So on what basis, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
Please tell me where in the Bible it says that infants are to be excluded from the grace of baptism? To say that they cannot receive it because they can’t possibly make the conscious decision is to ADD to God’s word..
Well dunno about you, but Roman Catholics take Christ’s words literally when he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)
Stella, I would just quickly like to know where you’re coming from.
Which one of the thousands of denominations do you belong to?
Do you believe that the Bible has an objective, infallible truth? If yes, then who has the authority to interpret it? Keep in mind; The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).
I don't have the time at this very moment to explain your error in your citing and or quotes of the Holy Bible. I will come back when I can appropriately address this. Stella is absolutely correct in her interpretation regarding infant baptism. I will leave you with this.
What question(s) is/are asked of baptismal candidate(s)? This should give you some insight before I return. Although, I'm sure Stella can address this issue, as it has been beat slam to death over the many centuries. She will not have any problem explaining and clearing your inquires up. If not, I'll be back to help you. God speed!
-
The Lords grace extends to infants.
Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. So on what basis, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
Yes, I believe Jesus extends His grace to those who are not able to consciously receive/reject Him...thus I believe that babies that die w/o consciously receiving Him as Savior still go to heaven. This is further confirmed for me in the account of King David's baby.
But your scripture doesn't say anything about them being baptized in water?
Please tell me where in the Bible it says that infants are to be excluded from the grace of baptism? To say that they cannot receive it because they can’t possibly make the conscious decision is to ADD to God’s word..
If you want to baptize babies in water, no one is stopping you. Some people believe it results in them being "saved," and some of us think it does nothing for the baby at all.
I do have a question though.....if a baby is baptized in water and you believe this results in them being saved....if they live to an age where they can understand receiving Christ as Savior, do they need to believe in Him or not?
Well dunno about you, but Roman Catholics take Christ’s words literally when he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)
I can see that that scripture can pose some def. questions!!
Some verses that may interest you:
Mark 1:6-8
John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
John 4:1-38 (KJV)
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)
John 7:37-38
On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."
EPH 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast.
Stella, I would just quickly like to know where you’re coming from.
Which one of the thousands of denominations do you belong to?
I go to a non-denominational church.
Do you believe that the Bible has an objective, infallible truth?
Yes.
If yes, then who has the authority to interpret it? Keep in mind; The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).
I believe we should all read and study the bible on our own to see what it really says. I think study materials can be helpful, but we need to look into it and study it ourselves.
If you are asking if I think the Roman Catholic church/Pope has the authority to interpret it I stand by my position that we should study what it says ourselves.
Didn't one of the Popes make Mary a "Co-redeemer" with Christ? What are your thoughts on that?
I have some other questions for you regarding traditions of Roman Catholicism if you don't mind...things I've always been curious about. Maybe we should do another thread w/those questions? We used to do "Learning Threads" here on diff. religions. We could do one on RC if you'd be willing. I tend to moderate them more strictly so they don't turn into a bash fest. Let me know!
-
Sorry if I’m off base here, but are you interpreting Christ’s words in such a way to suit you? Baptism means “Pouring of water”. When Jesus said "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) Roman Catholics take that literally, water, means water. If Jesus meant something else he would of said it differently to avoid the confusion, especially if it’s in regards to salvation wouldn’t you think?
The New Testament clearly associates water baptism with Spirit baptism and rebirth (even if they do not interpret this relationship as cause and effect).
Why do you suppose the word baptism is not in that verse?
And what are your thoughts on the verse immediately following John 3:5?
John 3:5-6:
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
I read all of your post and some things you and I agree on but I will never believe that water baptism is a pre-requisite for salvation.
I can post a bunch of verses if you like, but I'm pretty sure I won't convince you to my way of thinking either :)
You need both.
If someone is validly baptized as an infant, they receive grace. Maybe look at it this way; If you don't give a plant water and sunshine, it'll die. Same thing with the baptized infant. If they are not nurtured with the sunlight of Christ's truth (i.e., Catholic teaching) and the nutrition of soil/water, which is grace, they will die spiritually. And if they persist in spiritual death, then they will end up in hell.
I find this interesting though...could you please clarify for me...are you saying that a water baptized baby is saved...but later can lose their salvation?
What about someone who has been water baptized AND ALSO has accepted Christ as Savior...do you think they can lose their salvation?
I appreciate your explanation of Mary and the pope's co-redeemer thing...very interesting!!
But do you agree that even our faith is a gift of God?
But in all this, who was THE Redeemer? Christ alone.
Yes I agree that Christ alone is THE Redeemer.
Feel free to ask =).
Thanks so much! I have many questions. Maybe we will try to do one at a time on a Learning Thread.....will start one soon..... Thanks Sizwe!
-
What about someone who has been water baptized AND ALSO has accepted Christ as Savior...do you think they can lose their salvation?
There are examples in the Bible of such happening. It is possible, dear Stella.
-
There are examples in the Bible of such happening. It is possible, dear Stella.
Of people losing their salvation? Will you please post the verses?
-
Of people losing their salvation? Will you please post the verses?
Yes, unfortunately for them hun. For starters, before I refer you to the actual examples mentioned in the Bible of folks whom lost their salvation, tell me how you interpret these few scriptures. ---->
Hebrews 10:26-29: (NIV)
(26) "If we deliberately keep on sinning AFTER we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, (27) but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. (28) Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. (29) How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace"? :)
-
Yes, unfortunately for them hun. For starters, before I refer you to the actual examples mentioned in the Bible of folks whom lost their salvation, tell me how you interpret these few scriptures. ---->
Hebrews 10:26-29: (NIV)
(26) "If we deliberately keep on sinning AFTER we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, (27) but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. (28) Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. (29) How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace"? :)
Oh hey I thought you might mention these verses! We discussed this at a bible study before...
I think this is referring to people who have heard the gospel and are very close to believing on Jesus as Savior but before doing so, reject Him. So they were never truly saved to begin with.
There are people who hang out in the company of believers and call themselves believers ...and even "do stuff in His name....." but they may not be.... "Depart from me I never knew you" etc.
1 John 2:1,2
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins...
John 10:28-30
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
-
Oh hey I thought you might mention these verses! We discussed this at a bible study before...
I think this is referring to people who have heard the gospel and are very close to believing on Jesus as Savior but before doing so, reject Him. So they were never truly saved to begin with.
There are people who hang out in the company of believers and call themselves believers ...and even "do stuff in His name....." but they may not be.... "Depart from me I never knew you" etc.
1 John 2:1,2
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins...
John 10:28-30
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
Good point, Stella! See if you can find some more scripture which will indicate directly/clearly if this is indeed so. Hint: There are some examples of where people WERE considered saved for a time, yet, gave up their salvation.
-
Good point, Stella! See if you can find some more scripture which will indicate directly/clearly if this is indeed so. Hint: There are some examples of where people WERE considered saved for a time, yet, gave up their salvation.
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
-
One more time. Baptism requires the pouring of water; it is the replacement of circumcision which was also performed on infants (Col. 2:11–12).
The use of water is required, it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God”. We use real water which symbolizes Christ who is the living water. He is the fountain through whom we receive the Spirit which washes us of sin.
Christ baptizes w/the Holy Spirit. Agree that Christ is the living Water...the Holy Spirit is often referred to as Water.
What about the thief on the cross? He was not baptized w/water.
-
It’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks I suppose, and it can be an almost impossible task to get someone who’s been brought up their whole lives to think that “Catholics are wrong” to see and admit otherwise. I will pray for you.
Thanks. I'll take all the prayer I can get! I was not brought up my whole life thinking that Catholics are wrong.
Sorry I'm answering in separate posts by the screen is jumping when I type >:(
-
.
Whereas Catholics believe that God gave Peter a special Grace to teach infallibly. Jesus said "...you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Mat 16:18). We believe that Jesus extends this grace through Peter's successors to the present day Pope. We call this special grace infallibility. Therefore the Catholic Church has the only authority (which was granted by Christ) to interpret scripture. And that’s why everyone who leaves or isn’t part of the Roman Catholic Church subjects themselves to be lead into error, hence all the thousands of denominations which only continue to split up; ( that’s why I think an appropriate mission statement for the “Non denominational church” could be “ We don’t know what on earth to believe about scripture anymore, so let’s all just worship in confusion together.”) LOL =P.
Yeah, I think most non-Catholics don't accept Peter as having infallibility.
Eph 2:19-21:
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
What is the scripture where you think that subsequent Popes have infallibility?
So you only accept as true what your RC church teaches or just what the Pope teaches? Do you ever read the bible for yourself?
-
Yes, you can always lose your salvation. Catholics believe it’s unbiblical to think otherwise.
Catholics believe we must "endure until the end" with our faith. (Heb 11:6)
Catholics would say that God gave us free will and that even after we are authentically "born again," we can always choose to sin. We believe we can damage or break the bond with Christ even after we have had an authentic "born again" experience. If you are into porn, I don't care whether you are a born again Evangelical, Catholic, or whatever type of Christian, your soul is in grave danger.
Non Catholics sometimes criticize Catholics pointing at Romans 8:1, "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." I think a big question about Romans 8:1 is this: What does it mean to be "in Christ Jesus"? If someone is sinning in a grave way we would question whether they are "in Jesus Christ." We'd say they have through free will left communion with Christ, and are therefore no longer "in Christ".
The word "NOW" in Romans 8:1 does not mean that we can now be certain of our salvation from this moment forward. I don't think the text says that at all. The word "now" means exactly that, "now." He does not say "from now on..." I think it's important not to try to add meaning to clear sentences in the Bible (which I incidentally I see non Catholics doing all the time, i.e. excluding infants from baptism, saying the Eucharist is symbolic when Jesus clearly said “this IS my body and blood[…]” and Martin Luther did when he added the word “alone” to “Christ ALONE […]” etc,).
Being in Christ is a moment to moment thing and after our born again experience, there are many times when a Christian has to look in the mirror and ask "where am I at with the Lord today?" Catholics believe that we must continue to be in the presence of God in order to remain free of condemnation. If we drift, we must come back. It is important to remember that the passage leading to Romans 8:1 says:
For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do ... For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. (Rom 7:15-20)
He is speaking in the present tense. These are battles we each face even after our born again experience. Even the apostle Paul did. We must run the race until the finish line. (2 Tim 4:7)
"Paul was totally "born again," yet he said "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel" (1 Cor 9:16) When the Bible says "woe to ..." it means that there is grave danger, including hell. (Mat 11:21, 18:7, 23:13-16, 23-29, 24:19, 26:24, Mk 14:2, Lk 6:24-26, 10:13, 11:42-52, 17:1, 21:23, 22:22, Jud 1:11, Rev 8:13, 9:12, 11:14, 12:12)
Paul is saying that he must not only believe in the Lord Jesus but he must also do the will of Jesus, which was to preach the Gospel.
Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. (Mat 7:20)
Yes, I believe it is a good stepping stone. I believe if any non Catholic studies the Bible and church history enough, and without biased, they will see that the Roman Catholic Church is truly the church that Jesus built upon Peter, and that it cannot teach error in regards to faith and morals as promised by Christ and that it also provides a “fullness” of Christianity and a more intimate relationship with Christ.
I'll split this stuff to another thread later (RCC Learning Thread if that's OK w/you)...when my computer is behaving >:(
But just in case you are interested, these are some of the scriptures that I believe indicate that water baptism is not necessary for salvation:
Eph 2:8,9
You are saved by grace through faith and not of works so that no one can boast.
John 3:16-18
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
Romans 5:1
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
Galatians 3
Entire chapter but here is Gal 3:1-9:
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
-
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
Oh an I suppose households these days don't have infants too ::)
If there were exceptions to infants in a household Jesus would of made that clear. I'm pretty sure he knew his word would be recorded and lived by.
Next False accusation of the Roman Catholic Church please..
None of those children are recorded as being baptized. And, as stated earlier, I have no issue with children (i.e. NON-INFANTS) getting baptized. Most churches have age minimums for that (usually around age 10-12).
Why would I be against that? I WAS BAPTIZED AROUND THAT AGE!