Posted on 08/11/2018 10:24:01 AM PDT by Salvation
Nope. You don’t work off your sins in purgatory.
What part of ‘expiate’ do you need help with?
That’s the problem. Expiate does mean that, going to be dictionary for answers regarding religion may or may not get a good answer. Look up purgatory in the catechism
Excellent posting. Thank-you and God Bless.
Jesus gave the command to baptize: “...make disciples of all the nations baptizing them...” (Matt. 28:19). This Great Commission answers the question, who is to be baptized. Those who reject Infant Baptism refer to the passage: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.” This passage does not answer the question, who is to be baptized, but rather who will be saved. In His Baptismal command Jesus does not mention the age of those who are to be baptized. For this reason it is not right to deny Baptism to children. Those who deny Baptism to infants make a decisive mistake, when in addition to the general Baptismal command, they seek special commands for Infant Baptism. Because there is a general command that applies to everyone, the rejectors of Infant Baptism should find a passage that forbids the baptizing of infants. The Bible, however, nowhere forbids Infant Baptism. Those who forbid it act like a steward of an estate, who gets a command from the owner to seed all the land. But because the owner did not specifically tell the steward to seed some small fertile strips of the land, he did not seed them.
I wish we could stop arguing over infant baptism. It is something on which we will never agree and it detracts from our shared love of Jesus Christ.
Whether it is necessary or not for salvation, I agree with what a girl who was about six years old said when her Presbyterian minister asked her why she wanted to be baptized.
Her answer was: “Because Jesus wants me to be baptized.”
Out of the mouths of children . . .
Yes; and it was with the JEWS.
Ok. I'll post the link for you.
Which she 'learned' from whom?
Out of the mouths of children . . .
The child in your story expressed simple faith in what Jesus said to do. She made a personal, thoughtful decision to trust God.
That is a beautiful thing: trusting God and doing what He says.
There is no water there...We are washed by regeneration, not water...
The word in Greek is lutrou, which means bath. Titus literally says “bath of regeneration.” Sounds like water to me (and the Church, too - it’s always been understood as a reference to baptism).
Let’s pick one from the middle of the list:
Ephesians 5:25-26 English Standard Version (ESV)
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
HMMMmmm... doesn’t sound at ALL like baptism to me!
Washing of water with the word... that sounds EXACTLY like baptism. In fact, that is the DEFINITION of baptism.
What other washings with water are you aware of in Christianity?
Side note, this verse and Titus are the only two places in the NT where the word loutrou - bath - is used. What kind of bath do you think this is referencing if NOT water?
They need all of the above just as much as adults do!
You might think infants ‘need’ a lot of things; but they are in no way capable of using them until they are older.
Use them? What is there to use? Baptism does what the Bible says it does, and thats... kind of it (not to imply that *it* isn’t a HUGE deal).
How do you USE a baptism?
Let's take a look at the passage NK.
"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”…
The Apostles were to make disciples and baptize them.
The Apostles were to teach them to obey all Christ commanded.
I've yet to meet a baby that can become a disciple and then be baptized and taught.
Sorry, the conditions Christ gave are not met by babies.
Even the wet infants.
And yet, not a single infant I've asked, even said they wanted to be baptized.
I am behind here. Are you saying this passage in Ephesians 5 teaches that every husband should baptize his wife?
Which is simply another pilfered (http://www.luterilainen.com/en/read/word-is-the-fountain-of-life/19-infant-baptism-is-based-on-the-bible) pasted polemic of the same propaganda, which pasting you again pass off unattributed, as if it were your own.
And once again a paedobaptism apologist is exposed as sophist, since his analogy is fallacious. For to be consistent with baptism, the command from the owner would require a specific type of land, such as one which had a quality nontilled land did not.
For as said and shown at length and ignored, except for another poor pasted polemic, the state requirement for baptism is wholehearted faith. (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) Which infants cannot (cf. Is. 7:16) and need not exercise.
At least your Lutheran source recognizes this obstacle, but which drives him to be like Catholics in abusing Scripture in stating:
Those who deny Baptism to infants base Baptism on faith rather than on the Baptismal command. They claim that an infant cannot believe. Jesus says: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me..." (Matt. 18:6). According to Jesus even nursing babes (Matt. 21:16) are better believers than adults and are examples for them.
However, what the polemicist leaves out is that the subject was NOT an infant but a child who could hear and respond to Christ' invitation:
The Apostle Paul compares Baptism to circumcision, which rite was performed on male children at the age of eight days (Col. 2:11,12).
And only male children, and which age group was specified, in clear contrast to the NT, and was a required token, not a regenerating ritual (ex opere operato [by the act itself]), and in further contrast to Catholicism, it was a token, a symbol, and thus was not performed one anyone not of the faith household, in contrast to Catholicism.
Thus circumcision fails of full correspondence, and baptism is further distinguished by the subjects being commanded to be baptized being those who could comprehend the gospel and believe, and nowhere is paedobaptism manifested.
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,...But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6) (Matthew 18:2)
As for Matt. 21:16, that simply is not speaking of suckling actually praising God, but the poetic language is from Psalms 8:3 (lxx text), and here it contextually refers to"the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David," (Matthew 21:15) which again, is not infants.
Thus the Lutheran's defense is shot to pieces, and he should be ashamed of himself if he imagined he could pass this off to students of Scripture,. not only is the burden of proof on him to show that
I am behind here. Are you saying this passage in Ephesians 5 teaches that every husband should baptize his wife?
Um, no... can’t see where you got that...
Not as long as a sppsd conservative Christian adopting the tactics of homosexual activists and their comrades.
"Romophobe?" Do you really think i am motivated by some irrational fear of Catholicism or becoming one? It was not that which led this former devote Mass-going RC, and CCD teacher and lector prayerfully into evangelical faith, but esteem for Scriptural Truth and its work and fellowship, and thus by the grace of God I contend against the Roman deformation when it is promoted here. .
WHAT PART OF with the word fails to click?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.