Tradition and the Early Church Fathers...

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

Are you really comfortable with the idea that the truth is somehow scattered among the various disunited churches? Are you not concerned that there is no authority on earth with the competence to settle disputes over doctrine? I certainly wouldn't be!

I'm comfortable with the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is not the sole bearer of Christian truth, yes.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Indeed, it doesn't -- but have you considered that there may be good reasons for disliking the organization?

Even if the Church hadn't committed the various crimes over the years, it would still be hated (but not as much).

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm comfortable with the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is not the sole bearer of Christian truth, yes.

Other churches of course teach truth but also error. e.g. any church which teaches that baptism has no sacramental value is teaching error.

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

Even if the Church hadn't committed the various crimes over the years, it would still be hated (but not as much).

Other churches of course teach truth but also error. e.g. any church which teaches that baptism has no sacramental value is teaching error.

Infant sprinkling baptism is not a Scriptural doctrine. It is not found in the Bible. There is not one example in the Bible of one single baby being baptized. Baby baptism is of pagan origin and only gets the babys head wet!!. As it was said before Infant Baptism is responsible for sending more people to hell than ANY other religious error. It is a dreadful thing to baptize a baby and let him grow up believing that by that baptism he has been saved and is on his way to heaven.

All babies and children do not understand what baptism is about, they are forced into this ritual without concent of course below the age of accountability. The only reason the RC has infant baptism is because it looks good on their books. Ie 1.2 Billion members.

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

Other churches of course teach truth but also error. e.g. any church which teaches that baptism has no sacramental value is teaching error.

Hm, I also believe in sacramental worship in that baptism is an outward physical sign (water) of an inward physical motion (new life in the Christian faith). It makes sense. I wonder if any others would hold that view?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Even if the Church hadn't committed the various crimes over the years, it would still be hated (but not as much).

If the church didn't have the baleful influence it has in society, was less secretive, homophobic, misogynistic and arrogant and unambiguously placed improving society and the lives of its members above improving itself, then people wouldn't dislike it as much as they do. Its attitude to itself and everybody else really does not do it many favors.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Infant sprinkling baptism is not a Scriptural doctrine. It is not found in the Bible. There is not one example in the Bible of one single baby being baptized. Baby baptism is of pagan origin and only gets the babys head wet!!. As it was said before Infant Baptism is responsible for sending more people to hell than ANY other religious error. It is a dreadful thing to baptize a baby and let him grow up believing that by that baptism he has been saved and is on his way to heaven.

All babies and children do not understand what baptism is about, they are forced into this ritual without concent of course below the age of accountability. The only reason the RC has infant baptism is because it looks good on their books. Ie 1.2 Billion members.

Acts 2:38 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.

In light of this verse, can you honestly deny that baptism remits sin? The Early Church Fathers also taught that baptims remits sin. What more evidence do you need?

philologos

In Acts 16, didn't the jailer and all of his family get baptized when Paul and Silas were in prison? Surely some children would have got baptized in that instance?

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Other churches of course teach truth but also error. e.g. any church which teaches that baptism has no sacramental value is teaching error.

So the Catholic church has NEVER taught anything erroneous?

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

Acts 2:38 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.

In light of this verse, can you honestly deny that baptism remits sin? The Early Church Fathers also taught that baptims remits sin. What more evidence do you need?

According to the Authorised and New International versions the Buzz word is "Repent" and not "penance", ie "works" two entirely different words that will completly throw this verse out of context. Maybe some Greek / Hebrew scholors can get to the root of it.

Repent is mentioned in several other verses as the necessity for salvation. Babies cannot repent because they have not reached the age of reason. Baptism comes after repentance never before.


I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luke 13:5

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,
when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Acts 3:19

Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the
thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. Acts 8:22

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to the Authorised and New International versions the Buzz word is "Repent" and not "penance", ie "works" two entirely different words that will completly throw this verse out of context. Maybe some Greek / Hebrew scholors can get to the root of it.

Repent is mentioned in several other verses as the necessity for salvation. Babies cannot repent because they have not reached the age of reason. Baptism comes after repentance never before.


I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luke 13:5

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,
when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Acts 3:19

Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the
thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. Acts 8:22

I never said penance is what remits sin. I agree penance is necessary before baptism but only for those above the age of reason!

Acts 2:38 clearly says that baptims remits sin! That's the logical interpretation. Penance is secondary.

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

I never said penance is what remits sin. I agree penance is necessary before baptism but only for those above the age of reason!

Acts 2:38 clearly says that baptims remits sin! That's the logical interpretation. Penance is secondary.

Pouring a spoon of water over a screaming child is hardly going to remitt him of any sin, You dont have to teach a child to steal or lie as he grows older, it comes naturally because he is born into sin as inherrited from Adam.

Only when he reaches the age of reason he can ask god for forgiveness and change his ways. He gets bapised to make a dedication to follow the Lord Jesus Christ and to be His disciple nothing more than that.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Pouring a spoon of water over a screaming child is hardly going to remitt him of any sin, You dont have to teach a child to steal or lie as he grows older, it comes naturally because he is born into sin as inherrited from Adam.

How many times do I have to say this!? The water only symbolizes cleansing of the soul! It's the action of the Holy Spirit which remits sin and confers grace.

Acts 2:38 ..... and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

Why don't you question your beliefs?

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

How many times do I have to say this!? The water only symbolizes cleansing of the soul! It's the action of the Holy Spirit which remits sin and confers grace.

So baptism is only symbolic. Are we moving towards agreement?

Acts 2:38 clearly says that repentance should precede baptism. There is no mention of babies, no mention of an age of reason etc. Infant baptism is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

I never said penance is what remits sin. I agree penance is necessary before baptism but only for those above the age of reason!

Acts 2:38 clearly says that baptims remits sin! That's the logical interpretation. Penance is secondary.

As said by others, Acts 2:38 doesn't say that baptism remits sin. Peter commands his audience to repent and be baptised. It is at least a combination.

Furthermore, Acts is an historical book, not a doctrinal book. It is bad practice to support a doctrine from a historical event if there are plenty of doctrinal passages available.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Am I the only one here who cringes at clearly derogatory terms like "Romanism" and "Romanist Church"?

As opposed to complimentary terms such as 'heretic'?

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote: »

How many times do I have to say this!? The water only symbolizes cleansing of the soul! It's the action of the Holy Spirit which remits sin and confers grace.

Acts 2:38 ..... and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

Why don't you question your beliefs?

Many ex criminals and murders that have given their lives over to the lord and have become born again believers can tell you the exact date and time that they recieved the Holy Spirit. Many of these guys would have been born and baptised into Catholic and protestant denominations at birth. Their initial baptism at birth would meant absolutly zilch because they couldnt decide at that age. Examples of these would be some of the former members of the IRA and UDA that became Christian converts. EG Dez O'Hair, Billy Wright and Bobby Bates.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

So baptism is only symbolic. Are we moving towards agreement?

No, were not. I'm saying the water is symbolic. The cleansing action of the Holy Spirit is real. Baptism by water is the normal means but there is also baptism of desire and blood. In each case it's the action of the Spirit which matters.

PDN wrote: »

Acts 2:38 clearly says that repentance should precede baptism. There is no mention of babies, no mention of an age of reason etc. Infant baptism is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

Christ said that baptism is necessary for salvation. So by your rules no infant can be saved! Is that what you believe?

Or maybe you don't believe in original sin. Am I right?

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Christ said that baptism is necessary for salvation. So by your rules no infant can be saved! Is that what you believe?

Where did Christ say that baptism is necessary for salvation?

Or maybe you don't believe in original sin. Am I right?

No, you are not right. I believe in original sin, therefore every human being is born with an inclination towards sin which will, in time, manifest itself in actual sin. However, that propensity towards sin in no way hinders a child from going to heaven.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

As opposed to complimentary terms such as 'heretic'?

Gal 1:6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Many ex criminals and murders that have given their lives over to the lord and have become born again believers can tell you the exact date and time that they recieved the Holy Spirit. Many of these guys would have been born and baptised into Catholic and protestant denominations at birth. Their initial baptism at birth would meant absolutly zilch because they couldnt decide at that age. Examples of these would be some of the former members of the IRA and UDA that became Christian converts. EG Dez O'Hair, Billy Wright and Bobby Bates.

What do you think happens to children who die before they can confess Jesus as Lord and repent? Do you deny original sin?

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Where did Christ say that baptism is necessary for salvation?

John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

PDN wrote: »

No, you are not right. I believe in original sin, therefore every human being is born with an inclination towards sin which will, in time, manifest itself in actual sin. However, that propensity towards sin in no way hinders a child from going to heaven.

So you believe children are just before God? That's the only conclusion I can draw from this.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Gal 1:6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

Yes, Paul certainly used such language against those who added religious rituals to the simple Gospel of justification by faith. However, I would hope that posters will be a bit more refrained in this forum when it comes to discussing Roman Catholicism's doing the same thing.

Paul also suggested that his opponents should go and castrate themselves - but any poster who suggests that to another poster on this board will receive an infraction.

My point is that you can hardly go labeling everyone else as 'heretics' and then object if they use a term such as 'Romanism'. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

No reference to baptism there at all.

So you believe children are just before God? That's the only conclusion I can draw from this.

I certainly believe babies and infants are just before God. They have not committed actual sin so it would be manifestly unjust to judge them for sin.

Slav

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to the Authorised and New International versions the Buzz word is "Repent" and not "penance", ie "works" two entirely different words that will completly throw this verse out of context. Maybe some Greek / Hebrew scholors can get to the root of it.

I'm not a Greek scholar but I think "penance" is a more accurate translation of
πετρος δε εφη προς αυτους μετανοησατε και βαπτισθητω

However, I don't see what difference that would make as youngsters need no penance nor repent (Matthew 18:3, 19:4, for instance). If there was a practice of baptising kids then it does not have to be mentioned in Acts 2:38 as that's not the point Peter was making: he did not say something like "repent and be baptised every adult" or the other way round "repent every adult and be baptised every one of you".

In this particular case a supporter of baptising the babies can interpret the passage that for an adult there is a need to repent as (s)he has to prepare him/herself to accepts the Gifts of the Holy Spirit; kids are not mentioned as they don't need to repent because "for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt 19:4)

I am not aware of any single Scripture passage that would unambiguously clarify the issue by encouraging or prohibiting such a practice. Otherwise there would no such diversity of practices among Christians.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

No reference to baptism there at all.

So how then is someone to be born of water and the Holy Spirit?

PDN wrote: »

I certainly believe babies and infants are just before God. They have not committed actual sin so it would be manifestly unjust to judge them for sin.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

I know babies and infants aren't guilty of actual sin but original sin implies a privation of sanctifying grace until baptism. This sanctifying grace is the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38.

PDN

Slav wrote: »

I'm not a Greek scholar but I think "penance" is a more accurate translation of
πετρος δε εφη προς αυτους μετανοησατε και βαπτισθητω

metanoia means to 'repent' in the sense not just of feeling sorrow but of being converted to a different way of thinking and behaving. The idea is that of doing a U-turn - so for a thief to repent, for example, involves both a sense of sorrow for his thieving and also a cessation of such thieving.

It certainly does not mean 'penance' in the way that word appears to be popularly used by many Irish Catholics (doing a meritous act to somehow make up for a sin).

However, I don't see what difference that would make as youngsters need no penance nor repent (Matthew 18:3, 19:4, for instance). If there was a practice of baptising kids then it does not have to be mentioned in Acts 2:38 as that's not the point Peter was making: he did not say something like "repent and be baptised every adult" or the other way round "repent every adult and be baptised every one of you".

In this particular case a supporter of baptising the babies can interpret the passage that for an adult there is a need to repent as (s)he has to prepare him/herself to accepts the Gifts of the Holy Spirit; kids are not mentioned as they don't need to repent because "for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt 19:4)

I am not aware of any single Scripture passage that would unambiguously clarify the issue by encouraging or prohibiting such a practice. Otherwise there would no such diversity of practices among Christians.

In Acts 2:38 Peter was responding to people who were aware of their sin and were asking how they could be saved. I fail to see how that could include babies. It certainly appears unreasonable for Noel to take a verse where adults are told that they must repent and be baptised, and then to use it as a proof text where infants are baptised without having repented. But then again, if you believe the Church's interpretation of Scripture can trump any logical interpretation then I guess anything is possible.

You are correct in saying that the Scripture does not explicitly forbid the baptism of children. Equally it does not forbid the baptism of dogs or chimpanzees.

kelly1

Slav wrote: »

I am not aware of any single Scripture passage that would unambiguously clarify the issue by encouraging or prohibiting such a practice. Otherwise there would no such diversity of practices among Christians.

Wouldn't you agree that it's important to get the truth of the matter?

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

I fail to see how that could include babies. It certainly appears unreasonable for Noel to take a verse where adults are told that they must repent and be baptised, and then to use it as a proof text where infants are baptised without having repented.

What about Romans 5:12? What do you make of it?

Romans 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Does it not suggest that we have all inherited sin via Adam? It says *all* have sinned.

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm (maybe).

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

So how then is someone to be born of water and the Holy Spirit?

I can see two possible explanations, both of which are more likely than expecting Nicodemus to understand that Jesus was making a reference to a not yet invented doctrine of baptiamal regeneration by a not yet invented Roman Catholic Church.

The first possibility is that Jesus was referring to the first birth (by water - as in the process of physical birth when a woman's waters break) and then the second birth (by Spirit - when the Holy Spirit brings someone to saving faith). This interpretation would make sense in that Nicodemus was questioning how someone can be born a second time. Jesus is saying, "No. the second birth is not like the first birth. You don't have to go back into your mother's womb and be born by water for a second time. this time you are to be born by the Spirit."

The second possibility is that Jesus was referring to the promise in Ezekiel 36:25.

Either way, baptism has nothing to do with it.

I know babies and infants aren't guilty of actual sin but original sin implies a privation of sanctifying grace until baptism. This sanctifying grace is the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38.

No, Romans 5:12 simply tells us that we are all subject to death because of Adam's sin. What you are doing with these Bible verses is eisegesis - trying to force later RCC doctrine into every scripture possible. A better policy would be to try exegesis. Ask yourself, "What would this Scripture have meant to its original readers?"

Exegesis is essential if we are to honestly ask "What does the Scripture mean?" instead of "How can I use the Scripture to support my position?"

Slav

PDN wrote: »

metanoia means to 'repent' in the sense not just of feeling sorrow but of being converted to a different way of thinking and behaving.

Exactly. Thank you for the clarification.

You are correct in saying that the Scripture does not explicitly forbid the baptism of children. Equally it does not forbid the baptism of dogs or chimpanzees.

So what exactly does it prove or disprove? The views on this matter of both camps are well known for centuries, each has own solid basis behind their practices. Why the whole issue should be such a big deal?

Slav

kelly1 wrote: »

Wouldn't you agree that it's important to get the truth of the matter?

I'm nearly positive that this issue (as well as many others) would not be resolved on boards.ie as during the past few centuries all the attempts to reach an agreement have failed, so why this one should be different?..

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

The first possibility is that Jesus was referring to the first birth (by water - as in the process of physical birth when a woman's waters break) and then the second birth (by Spirit - when the Holy Spirit brings someone to saving faith).

Two things about this. 1) Jesus said "born again" so He couldn't have meant natural birth. 2) Jesus said "water AND the Holy Spirit". How, in your opinion, is someone reborn of water (and the Holy Sprit) if not in baptism?

I don't see why you're separating the water part and the Holy Spirit part into two separate acts? Where do you think the practice of water baptism came from if not from Jesus words about being born again of water and the Spirit.

kelly1

Slav wrote: »

I'm nearly positive that this issue (as well as many others) would not be resolved on boards.ie as during the past few centuries all the attempts to reach an agreement have failed, so why this one should be different?..

I'm inclined to agree. I'm just wasting our valuable time really

PDN

Slav wrote: »

So what exactly does it prove or disprove? The views on this matter of both camps are well known for centuries, each has own solid basis behind their practices. Why the whole issue should be such a big deal?

You cannot prove or disprove the practice of infant baptism from Scripture.

To me it is not a big deal. Presbyterians, for instance, baptise infants. However, since they are not making it essential to salvation then I can happily agree to disagree with my Presbyterian friends.

However, the Catholic Church makes a very big deal over it by making baptism (or more specifically Roman Catholic baptism) essential to salvation. Therefore the baptism of infants becomes a big deal because we have a large proportion of the population of this country being taught that they are saved because of a ceremony that was performed on them without their consent and for which there is no Scriptural support.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Two things about this. 1) Jesus said "born again" so He couldn't have meant natural birth.

Of course He could have meant natural birth. The first birth by water and the second birth by the Spirit - hence born 'again'.

How, in your opinion, is someone reborn of water (and the Holy Sprit) if not in baptism?

If Jesus is referring to natural birth then we are all already born of water. you are born of the Spirit by placing your faith in Jesus Christ and receiving Him as your Lord and Saviour.

I don't see why you're separating the water part and the Holy Spirit part into two separate acts? Where do you think the practice of water baptism came from if not from Jesus words about being born again of water and the Spirit.

It is a matter of historical record that when a Gentile converted to Judaism he was baptised in order to symbolise the fact that his uncleanness had been removed.

John the Baptist continued this practice but reinterpreted it in a revolutionary way, by baptising people who already Jews. John was saying that being physically born a Jew, and undergoing the ceremonies of circumcision etc, was insufficient. Repentance had to take place - and baptism symbolised the forgiveness and cleansing that God granted to the repentant.

The followers of Jesus were commanded by Christ to continue this practice, baptising those who had come to repentance.

philologos

Good post PDN. However infant baptism is still popular in my church, not at the instruction of the priest, but it just happens to be what people want to do.

There are three ways of baptism as far as I know in Anglicanism:
1) Infant baptism at font
2) Adult baptism at font
3) Adult immersal baptism.

I have never seen 2 or 3, however I've seen 2 happen at someones confirmation roughly 15 years of age.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Of course He could have meant natural birth. The first birth by water and the second birth by the Spirit - hence born 'again'.

What? How can someone be born *again* naturally?

What about Mt 28:19?

18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The apostles were commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It wasn't optional!

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

What? How can someone be born *again* naturally?

Nobody said they could. I think maybe you should read my post again. I thought I'd made myself clear enough. Jesus said you need to be born of water (natural birth) and then born again of the Spirit in order to be saved.

What about Mt 28:19?
It wasn't optional!

Nobody has said it was optional. It is a command from Jesus, but that is very different from saying it is essential to salvation.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Nobody said they could. I think maybe you should read my post again. I thought I'd made myself clear enough. Jesus said you need to be born of water (natural birth) and then born again of the Spirit in order to be saved.

C'mon! Everybody is born of water. Why would Jesus state the obvious?? It's like saying everyone must have a head (or have a father and mother) and be born again of the Spirit. Don't you think your interpretation is stretching credibility?

I quit. I told myself I would never again start another debate with non-catholics. I should have learned by now...

Over and out.

Asiaprod

kelly1 wrote: »

I quit. I told myself I would never again start another debate with non-catholics. I should have learned by now...

Over and out.

What a shame, you probably do not realize that you have actually done a lot to further the non-Christian's understanding of your beliefs. I have learned an incredible amount from this thread and it has certainly made me understand and see some of the concepts in a much different light.

kelly1

Asiaprod wrote: »

What a shame, you probably do not realize that you have actually done a lot to further the non-Christian's understanding of your beliefs. I have learned an incredible amount from this thread and it has certainly made me understand and see some of the concepts in a much different light.

Thanks, glad to hear I've achieved something! God bless you (and everyone else here).

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

C'mon! Everybody is born of water. Why would Jesus state the obvious?? It's like saying everyone must have a head (or have a father and mother) and be born again of the Spirit. Don't you think your interpretation is stretching credibility?

Not at all. Nicodemus had already raised the issue of re-entering his mother's womb. Therefore it makes perfect sense in the context for Jesus to contrast the second birth (spiritual) with the first birth (natural).

What does stretch credibility is an interpretation that says that Jesus totally ignored Nicodemus' reference to natural birth and then expected a Jew to understand that a reference to water refers to Christian baptism.

santing

A late reply - just the view of Tertullian on Baptism. I don't agree with all he says, but he makes a case to delay baptism till after marriage... He definitely wasn't fond of baptising children!

Tertullian (AD 160)

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary (Tertullian has already allowed (in c. xvi) that baptism is not indispensably necessary to salvation.) —that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” (Matt. xix. 14; Mark x. 14; Luke xviii. 16.) Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom—until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

I quit. I told myself I would never again start another debate with non-catholics.

Why?