Why are YOU not a catholic?

[Pat2]

There are a GREAT many Christian sects/ communions/ churches.

BUT Only one is founded by Christ Himself. The Catholic Church.

So my friend, why are you NOT a Catholic?

God Bless,

Pat

[kayky]

If they are innocent, what the heck does baptism do besides make them cry. Your own words prove the point it's a meaningless exercise.

The really amazing thing is that they usually do NOT cry.

[Xian Pugilist]

Really, this is getting lame. I never said you did. WHAT HAD YOU SAID, when I made the comment about purgatory, and how might it have applied. There isn't a crayola font, so you must meet me half way. If you make no effort to track the conversation, then the breaking it down to an impossible to understand level will be very time consuming.

Well, I'm not intentionally being lame. I don't always read posts that aren't addressed to me. You might want to keep that in mind. My time is valuable too, you know. I find the crayola comment totally uncalled for. You need to get a handle on your emotions. They've already got you in handcuffs, for heavens sake.
.

As I did your first, and second, and partially your third comments, which you felt a need to make, without even reading, or at least digesting the posts. You responded to what you thought might have been said, rather than take the time to get what was said.

I value time, that's why I mentioned, if that's what you have, don't waste your time. I'm valuing your time. As I said, I'm done. But I wasn't going to let you try to push rudness off on me, after I was responding nicely to your rudeness, and didn't make the crayola comment until the third pass and used it for comic relief and shock value because three attempts at straight talk had failed. I changed tactics.

ta ta.

[micatala]

Do you always assume it wasn't read when you don't get the answer you want?

Do you really expect me to type a 10k response on my phone with my thumbs?

I do notice you desperately latch onto a chance to posture as more than me. I think that's rather cute.

AND btw, the pugsy thing, it's been done before, but it still makes me laugh.

Pugsy wugsy....



You have to actually read the reply. Generally helps. But I understand that you may feel that your are out of your league here. So feel free to run around the bush screaming "lalalalalalalala" at the top of your lungs. Now most of us will assume you are afraid to actually defend your stance, but some of us might also assume you are tying to do an interpretative dance and sing the Smurfs song.

So feel free to go back and re-read the posts and look at the other instances of anti-Christian actions of the Catholic church and then come back with a response.

Moderator Comment


Both Fides' post and Xian's response are off topic. Reading these posts, there seems to be nothing that addresses anything to do with the thread.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[jedicri]

Do you baptise a child before they are aware of what being saved is?

The Scriptures demonstrate that the early Church baptized babies. In Acts, Peter preaches thus to the crowd:

"But Peter said to them; Do penance, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call" (Act 2:38-39).

In Acts 2:39, Peter identifies three groups of individuals who are the recipients of this promise: you, your children, and all who are far off. But Peter doesn’t stop there. Instead, he qualifies all three groups with the clause, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself. In other words, to how many of you has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. To how many of your children has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. To how many of those who are far off has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. God has promised to give the Holy Spirit to those whom He effectually calls and draws to Himself in salvation. This includes Peter’s immediate hearers (you), succeeding generations (your children), and even Gentiles in distant places (all who are far off).

I may be inclined to agree with you except for the fact that when Peter said the promise of baptism is for children, the word "children" (from the Greek, teknon) also includes infants. This same word teknon is also used later in Acts 21:21 to describe the circumcision of eight -day old children. This proves that the promise of baptism is for infants.

You only focus on this particular passage, (as does Xian Pugilist and Fides et Veritas considering their responses above), but do not consider the whole teachng of baptism as St. Paul has taught as outlined in my original post, ie., and I re-iterate:

It is important to remember the correlation between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant when discussing infant baptism. Babies were circumcised when they were eight days old ( Gen 17:12, Lev 12:3); this was the sign by which they entered inot the Mosaic Covenant. Paul calls baptism the "new circumcison" when he writes:

"In whom also you are circumcised with a circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead" (Col 2: 11-12).

Since baptism is the new circumcision of the New Covenant, baptism is for babies as well as adults (just as circumcision in the Old Covenant was for babies as well as adults). God did not make His New Covenant narrower than the Old Covenant. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's New Covenant; infants and children were always part of God's covenant family.

A covenant that excluded children would be inferior to the original covenant. In reality, the grace of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant surpasses that of the Old Covenant (see Rom 5:15), to include not only infants, but Gentiles as well.

[McCulloch]

Do you baptise a child before they are aware of what being saved is?

The Scriptures demonstrate that the early Church baptized babies. In Acts, Peter preaches thus to the crowd:

"But Peter said to them; Do penance, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call" (Act 2:38-39).

In Acts 2:39, Peter identifies three groups of individuals who are the recipients of this promise: you, your children, and all who are far off. But Peter doesn’t stop there. Instead, he qualifies all three groups with the clause, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself. In other words, to how many of you has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. To how many of your children has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. To how many of those who are far off has God promised the Holy Spirit? As many as the Lord shall call to Himself. God has promised to give the Holy Spirit to those whom He effectually calls and draws to Himself in salvation. This includes Peter’s immediate hearers (you), succeeding generations (your children), and even Gentiles in distant places (all who are far off).

I may be inclined to agree with you except for the fact that when Peter said the promise of baptism is for children, the word "children" (from the Greek, teknon) also includes infants. This same word teknon is also used later in Acts 21:21 to describe the circumcision of eight -day old children. This proves that the promise of baptism is for infants.

You only focus on this particular passage, (as does Xian Pugilist and Fides et Veritas considering their responses above), but do not consider the whole teachng of baptism as St. Paul has taught as outlined in my original post, ie., and I re-iterate:

It is important to remember the correlation between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant when discussing infant baptism. Babies were circumcised when they were eight days old ( Gen 17:12, Lev 12:3); this was the sign by which they entered inot the Mosaic Covenant. Paul calls baptism the "new circumcison" when he writes:

"In whom also you are circumcised with a circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead" (Col 2: 11-12).

Since baptism is the new circumcision of the New Covenant, baptism is for babies as well as adults (just as circumcision in the Old Covenant was for babies as well as adults). God did not make His New Covenant narrower than the Old Covenant. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's New Covenant; infants and children were always part of God's covenant family.

A covenant that excluded children would be inferior to the original covenant. In reality, the grace of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant surpasses that of the Old Covenant (see Rom 5:15), to include not only infants, but Gentiles as well.

[kayky]

Thank you, Jedicri. That's the best explanation I've ever read.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Thank you, Jedicri. That's the best explanation I've ever read.

Moderator Comment

I agree that jedicri did his usual good job. But one-liners that do not further the debate are frowned on. If you really really liked it, there is always MPG. But that is up to you.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.