what would you say if

[lk_wicked]

what would you say if I told you that a minister/priest refused to baptise a child of mine because I was not married? More then one minister/priest made the same claim.

I thought that according to the bible, God will never turn children away from the church.

[Soundbear]

I'd say don't worry about it.

Churches all make up their own rules. This is one that really has very little biblical support. And even less for turning you away. And God cares a lot more about children than He does about the average church organization.

[§ienna]

Out of sheer curiousity, what denomination refused baptism?

[Babzz]

No wonder so many have issues with organized religion/churches

You guys are something else..

You want a push button faith.
A vending machine god.
A smorgasboard religion. Give me what I want, God, or I will reject you.

Why not ask, "What does God want from me?"

Where, oh where, does it say he wants your babies to be baptised???

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: daretobe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what would you say if I told you that a minister/priest refused to baptise a child of mine because I was not married? More then one minister/priest made the same claim.

I thought that according to the bible, God will never turn children away from the church. </div></div>

another classic example of belivers that follow only what suits their needs... The Bible also states you should not have sex before marriage, but looks like you went and done that anyways.
Follow the religion completely or don't bother doing it at all.

[§ienna]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You guys are something else..

You want a push button faith.
A vending machine god.
A smorgasboard religion. Give me what I want, God, or I will reject you.

Why not ask, "What does God want from me?"

Where, oh where, does it say he wants your babies to be baptised???



</div></div>

I wouldn't think that was directed at me, because I didn't say I approved or dissapproved of the refusal of baptism, nor did I state my position on it, I was simply curious about the denomination who refused it.

[Babzz]

I belong the church of my own conscience. Its all I need /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[Larimar]

It's just water, and a priest is no holier a man than anyone else. In fact, I've probably met people living off the streets who had less sin than some priests I read aboiut- That being said..If you really want to baptise your child I'm sure there are places that will, there are places that even baptise animals. Or you could ask God yourself to bless water for you, and do it yourself. You are no less of a person than a minister or Priest and God loves you the same as he does a priest. There's nowhere that says we can't ask God ourselves. Technically, I believe if You accept Jesus then he already blesses you, so you can do the water yourself.(I Pet 2:9 )


I don't really feel it's necessary for a child to be baptised to go to heaven or any of that...

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

I think that if we have the holy spirit in us, technically there's no reason why the holy spirit wouldn't hear us if we wante dto baptize-and were denied by a church.



Seems bad of them really to deny you.
I'm not religious, but if they denied me I'd give them a few words for sure lol.


~dreamspirit/formerly

[Karen-Annie]

I can understand where you are coming from,'loof but I think maybe you're being a bit harsh.There are a few things in play here.For one,many of us were brought up in homes where we went to church sporadically,if at all......but virtually all of us were baptised and watched the emphasis put on having children baptized in our own and other families.For another,most of us don't want to take any risks with our kids so even if we might not go to church or agree with/ follow the "rules",we don't want to take a chance with our children "just in case". Yes,it is an immature and uninformed view of the church and baptism but when it is what you grew up and have seen virtually all your life,it is a deeply ingrained perception and not one easily erased. Heck even when you HAVE learned more, some things are hard to get over....like what I was taught in nurses' training about the "conditional baptism" of "the products of conception" in miscarriages......it STILL bothers me that today's students have no idea about it and have never heard of it.

Babies and baptism are deeply ingrained cultural/ societal/ familial touchstones.I think you could have couched your post in more sympathetic terms and still got your point across.

[GRUMPY]

You seem to forget that for some on here there is BLACK and there is WHITE but theres no such thing as gray.

Grumpy, you are being very black and white.
You are not &lt;gasp&gt; JUDGING me, are you?

Yeah, K-A I was a bit harsh.

It was more Babz comment that pushed my button.

So let me rephrase that. I will explain more fully.

Infant baptism historically began in the 2nd century, when some of the church fathers began to teach that baptism is the sacrament that saves a person's soul.

In reality, every instance of water baptism that occurs in the Bible involves a person who has personally repented of his disobedience to God and believes in Jesus Christ as the SOn of God who died as a sin-sacrifice in our place.

Among other things, Baptism pictures a dying to the old self, and a rising in resurrection to the new life of following Christ.

But when the church started believing that baptism actually was the salvation of the soul, logically, one would want to baptize people as early as possible, so they began to baptize infants. By the way, they were baptized by being completely immersed in water.. dunked.. all the way under.. and the orthodox church still does that to this day.

So, if you view the baptism of your baby as necessary to save the baby's soul (just in case,as K-A puts it) don't worry.. it has as much effect on the soul as a daily bath.. i.e. none.

But if you view the baptism as a type of family tradition, wiht no real religious significance behind it, well, that's entirely up to you.

What would be best is (if it really matters to you that your child grows up as a child of God) if you yourself got to understand what you believe, and really believe it. I.E. by integrating what you SAY you believe with how you live.

That's integrity... when your values line up with your words..

Hypocrisy occurs to the extent that what you say you believe does not square with the way you live.

[lk_wicked]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You guys are something else..

You want a push button faith.
A vending machine god.
A smorgasboard religion. Give me what I want, God, or I will reject you.

Why not ask, "What does God want from me?"

Where, oh where, does it say he wants your babies to be baptised???



</div></div>

For the record: I wanted the right and the choice to have my children baptized. For my own spirtual beliefs. Since when does a minister or clergy of a parish have the right to turn any one away. By the way, I did have them baptized, just not by that denomination.

[lk_wicked]

Just to add a bit more to that story. I was brought up roman catholic. I was taught that if our children are not baptized, they will not go to heaven if they die.

Needless to say, I no longer believe in the catholic church or the catholic religion. However, this was in my early twenties very traumatizing for me, I thought my kids "souls" were in peril.

I believe in a more loving God then that now. And my faith is as strong as ever. Maybe even more so. Hence the reason, I see the church as an organization, a business, far more then I see it as a place of worship and prayer.

I know that it still happens to people today.

thats all.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Since when does a minister or clergy of a parish have the right to turn any one away.</div></div>

I know that in our church, if a person shows good evidence that he or she is a follower of Christ, nothing should hinder that person from being baptized.

In the case where a church actually believes that salvation depends on baptism, I see no reason why a child should not be baptized. It is possible that priests will not baptize children of parents who do not show evidence of believing in their faith. If the parent is not involved in church life, it is most likely that the children won't be either.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if a person shows good evidence </div></div>

Hmmmm, I'd like to know what "evidence" this involves.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You guys are something else..

You want a push button faith.
A vending machine god.
A smorgasboard religion. Give me what I want, God, or I will reject you.

Why not ask, "What does God want from me?"

Where, oh where, does it say he wants your babies to be baptised???



</div></div>

Where, oh where, does it say Scripture alone is all you need? Where, oh where, does it say faith alone is all you need?

Why you Protestants keep going there, when so much of what you hold onto is not found directly in the Bible, is absolutely beyond me.

You are difficult to understand, Aydeloof. Here is a prefect opportunity for you, a minister of God who tends to his sheep in your own congregation, to talk and reason with someone who has a serious question. Instead, you lash out, criticizing him or her for even asking the question.

I could never, ever, see my priest doing such a thing.

But then again, my priest doesn't have to go on some cheap bulletin board to try and justify his faith.



I guess I just answered my own question.

[GenX]

Former Protestant Karl Keating...


"Your "Bible Christian" friends believe in baptism, but they do not believe in it as you do. Catholics understand baptism to be regenerative. It removes the stain of original sin and infuses sanctifying grace into the soul. Eastern Orthodox and many mainline Protestants think likewise, but Fundamentalists and Evangelicals disagree.

They say baptism is merely a sign that one has "accepted Christ as Lord and Savior" and therefore has become a Christian. It is the acceptance that matters. Undergoing baptism indicates to Christians that you are now one of them, but you would be one of them even if you never were baptized. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals call baptism an ordinance, a practice that Christ ordered his Church to perform, even though it does not effect a real change in the recipient.

This understanding leads to scriptural difficulties for those who think baptism does not rise above the symbolic. "He saved us . . . by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit . . . so that we might be justified by his grace" (Titus 3:5–7). This "washing of regeneration" is baptism. It actually does something to us. It regenerates, says Scripture.

The conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit brings us to John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The Catholic Church understands this combination to represent the water of baptism that brings to us the Holy Spirit, which is to say his grace. "Bible Christians," avoiding the plain sense, say that Christians misunderstood this verse from the earliest years right up to the Reformation. Instead of "water and the Spirit" being read as a unit (baptism), they should be read independently: water (baptism) and the Holy Spirit (accepting Christ as Lord as Savior). Only the second is functional; the former is decorative—commanded by Christ but nevertheless not really doing anything to the recipient.

Turn to Acts 2:38, where Peter says, "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." Notice the sequence: First comes repentance; then comes baptism—which effects the forgiveness of sins—and then, as a consequence of that forgiveness and therefore of baptism, comes the gift (the grace) of the Holy Spirit. This verse makes sense only if it is understood as saying that baptism is not a mere symbol. If baptism were just an ordinance and not a sacrament, why would Peter bother to include it in his instruction?

The head of the apostles is supported by Paul, who said to the Corinthians that "you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified" (1 Cor. 6:11). By washed he was not referring to the Corinthians’ bathing practices, because sanctification and justification are not dependent on hygienic practices. The verb meant that they had been baptized, and it was their baptism that brought them, for the first time, a state of sanctification and justification. Baptism changed them internally, spiritually, as it changes us."

Sorry, Mr Keating, that doesn't wash (smile; pun intended). When the Phillipian jailor asked Paul, "What must I do to be saved?" the response was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved."

No word there about the salvific value of baptism.

Something THAT critical would surely have been taught in the book of Romans, the centrepiece of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Or Paul's other epistles, such as the letter to the Galatians where CHristians were slipping back into legalism. Yet, it always comes down to an exercise of faith in Jesus CHrist. Not being daubed with some water on a baby's forehead

Baptism and belief in Christ went hand in hand because baptism was the initiation rite into following Jesus.

When the Ethiopean asked philip, "Here is water. What hinders that I be baptised, Philip answered, "IF YOU BELIEVE, YOU MAY.."

Babies cannot believe.. much less understand the gospel of JEsus CHrist.

The wedding ring doesn't MAKE me married to my wife. The trust and fidelity vowed to one another does. The rign SIGNIFIES my marriage. It did not create it.

SO too, the baptism. Faith and baptism go hand in hand, just as the wedding ring and the vows. But the vows are the clincher. Because it is a matter of faith alone.

And that verse about being washed??
Paul writes this to Titus: washed with the water of the WORD.

"But then again, my priest doesn't have to go on some cheap bulletin board to try and justify his faith."

Speedy, seeing as you like to villify people publicly on "cheap bulletin boards" this stands as a testimony to your character.

Now you are getting exceedingly angry. And petty. You are also being very disingenuous when you post a dozen questions, and then seek to villify me for attempting a civil answer.

I do not see any indication in your life that you are into the spirit of Christ at all nor He into you.. And all the masses in the world will do nothing to save your soul, if you do not allow Christ to transform your heart.

And your heart has remained as cold as ever. With your insulting and vindictive ways, you demonstrate who your real father is, and its not pretty, not compelling in the least, and certainly nothing your priest would be proud of.

Once again, when you cannot argue, you get vindictive.
Now do your thing and start flooding the boards with your tantrums.

Let us say I grant that baptism brings regeneration. You said <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"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." Notice the sequence: First comes repentance; then comes baptism—</div></div>

Let me hold you to that.
You will agree that repentance must come first. Then why do you baptize infants? It seems to me you've got the cart before the ox. A priest cannot somehow confer baptism on a baby, can he? Repentance is a volitional act of the participant.

A baby cannot repent, nor believe. Therefore you do not even believe your own argument that baptism is regenerative.

You believe that BAPTISM ALONE regenerates, without the necessity of water.

You cannot have it both ways.

Belief is demonstrated in that I follow Jesus. AND my first step in following Jesus is to follow him into the water of baptism.

But its is the faith that saves, and the water that affirms.

Now, let me ask you, is it possible that if I am in a desert, and came to faith in Christ as my Saviour, and died in the desert, without baptism, would God reject me on that count?

I do not think you would go that far.

Secondly, if I was at the beach and had all the water in the world available to me, and was baptized 1000 times, yet did not repent of my sins, would baptism save me? Nope? You and I agree then.

The logical outcome of this logical exercise then is that it is faith has the priority that saves, not baptism. Baptism is the obedient next step but is not inherently regenerative.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you demonstrate who your real father is </div></div>

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif

Hmmm, that would explain the horns on my head, and spiked tail...

Save me, preacher man!!!

And this is the same guy who said Jesus works "even through Speedy" just a week or so ago...


All kidding aside, I am only responding as you respond. You get dismissive and angry when questions are posed.

And how you acted to a very sincere and innocent question concerning baptism shows just how uncomfortable you are with your current theological standing.

You want to lash out at me because the theological ground you're standing on feels like quicksand? Fine.

But remember, you're the minister here, the leader; and the fact you've shown anything but leadership over the last few days is more your problem than mine.

Please, your attempt to try and discredit me isn't working. You allow allies like Barry to absolutely impugn the RCC with lies, yet you come after me when you feel slighted in the least. How dare you claim on your blog you are searching "for Truth"!

Jesus said His Church would not fall, even against the gates of Hell. The Reformation is no doubt one such instance he was referring to.

So, who is YOUR father, Aydeloof, when it is you that helps perpetuate the biggest schism within Church history???

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The logical outcome of this logical exercise then is that it is faith has the priority that saves, not baptism. Baptism is the obedient next step but is not inherently regenerative. </div></div>

And the early Church Fathers disagree with you.

Who do I believe...

[Soundbear]

A's truthful comments about your attitudes have once again given you the opportunity to ignore questions you can't answer. But he IS bang on.

His words on baptism are right on, too. You CAN"T respond.

Try this: http://www.justforcatholics.org/

[GenX]

Barry gets so brave intellectually, when he lets others do his heavy lifting for him. When Aydeloof isn't around, Barry runs.

Actually, I responded to Aydeloof. His answers were quite lacking, Barry.


Infant Baptism removes the stain of original sin. Aydeloof did nothing to contradict that. His 'proof' bordered on a non sequiter.

You're still not answering.
And you go after the messenger.
Hmm. Same old.

[GenX]

Ayd, I answered you.

Can you take a breath?

[GenX]

Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that 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.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

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).

-CA

[GenX]

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.

-CA

This is precisely where assumptions play a big part in your theology.

Baptism and the connection with circumcision is NOT the same thing. There is no correlation.

Secondly, You have not answered my question, for you cannot answer a question by raising a tangential problem. That is called a diversion.

Is being saved by faith alone possible? Yes or no?
Is it possible to be saved by JUST baptism, without faith? Yes or no?
Which act will more probably be regenerative?

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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.

-CA </div></div>

How do you know he had children?? Household does not necessarilty include them. You assume so, but the bible would be more clear if it was such an important issue.

You cannot build such an important doctrine on a "could have been". That's irresponsible.

[GenX]

But the same can be said of your doctrine.

It is not explicit that it is NOT for children, is it?

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You cannot build such an important doctrine on a "could have been". That's irresponsible.
</div></div>

Pre-millennialism

Post-millennialism

Rapture

Can you show me where those are explicitly in the Bible?

[Soundbear]

Magisterium

Pope

Trinity

Let's stop playing games.

[GenX]

Barry, you are the one that needs it to be "explicitly in the Bible", not I. I hold to Tradition AND Scripture. You, only to Scripture.

So the onus is on you to show me where those key Protestant beliefs are in the Bible.

Can you do it?

[Soundbear]

Already have, RWGR, already have.

[Soundbear]

Baptism.

Hmmm.

Seems to me that the RCC does indeed believe that baptism DOES save.

I suppose that accounts for so many Catholics believing that they are "in", and leading their lives in any way they chose.

Reminds me of what Speedy says about faith alone.

[GenX]

Again, a complete fabrication.

It is "once saved, always saved" that many Protestants cling to. Catholics believe we have great, great hope of being saved, through Jesus, but it is not a 100% guarantee if we do not live good lives.

Baptism is part of the process. We baptize the young, but as converts to the Church show, we baptize any age. It's just that we choose to baptize at a young age, but that does not mean if someone is not baptized as a baby they will not be saved.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Already have, RWGR, already have. </div></div>

That non-answer speaks volumes.

Thanks you for showing us you cannot defend your faith, yet you'll attack any Catholic you fell cannot do the same.