What? The disciples listened to what Christ said while He was here. 10 days after He left, the disciples received the Holy Spirit. They started spreading out and starting churches as the went. Peter stayed in Jerusalem with the church he started for 15 years.
You aren't making sense. You're grasping at things hoping for an argument. Google, when were books made...
And my rebuttal is why are you worrying about a religion that is not your own? Especially since you misstate it so badly.
Pointing out facts is arrogant? All along you and The Irish Ram have been pointing out where the Catholic faith is wrong about baptism. Without attacking your own beliefs on baptism I have been pointing out Catholic beliefs and how they developed. You keep insisting that is wrong, according to something that began being taught fifteen hundred years later. There is no wish on either the part of either of you to understand the Catholic position. I have said at least twice I understand your position and your choices. I've offered peace, which was pretty much thrown down and stomped on.
That's my point. There is no understanding from you how the Catholic position on baptism harmonizes with all of scripture and with Apostolic tradition. Many of the proof texts thrown out here are out of context.
I have not gone after any messenger and I have not engaged in personalities. Nor have I complained that anyone has gone after me for the simple fact, none have. This has been a simple discussion of why Catholics baptize babies and why some of the other Christian denominations do not. And...the funniest part, is having so very little to say one must rely on "Fake News". Always has me grinning and shaking my head, but the forfeit is accepted all the same.
Shrug.
Then you are on the road of destruction, Hypocrite.
that's what Protestants do. They are so far removed from the True Faith (500 years removed, to be precise) that they don't have the first clue about Catholicism, but that does not in any way hinder them from speaking on the topic. I call that intellectually vacuous or disingenuous. They call it "sticking to the Bible"
The heart of the issue is focusing on a single Biblical verse, and moving established doctrine in that direction. Catholicism is rooted in Judaism which is rooted in Genesis and the fall of man. Catholics perceive the salvation and redemption of mankind in this light. Instead of disobedience, we are trained in obedience from our birth. We--and our family--live a new way of life in the Kingdom. Our life begins with redemption and salvation--and living salvation and redemption. Understanding of this is built into the way we live our lives and train our children. Salvation and redemption is not something one must wait for until they understand and agree this way of God, not the way of the world and Satan is what they choose.
Where does it show a child who doesn't even understand the concept of sin was ever baptized? Answer: it doesn't. Baptism is the outward manifestation of REPENTANCE. Babies don't repent. Most adults have never repented. As usual you make a lot of ASSumptions and read into the Bible what you'd like it to say.
This is disingenuous, at best.
In Catholicism, baptism is a sacrament of Initiation. An analogy: One does not wait to play baseball until s/he can hit a home run. Likewise, a child does not need to wait to learn about repentance and reconciliation until s/he has done wrong. Baptism is the recognition and acceptance that sins are forgiven. Parents and godparents promise to raise their child in this environment and with this knowledge--train them up in the way they should go.
That would seem to indicate that you believe I have added to what Christ said. Perhaps you would be so good as to quote where I did that?
To non-Catholics, baptism is a public acknowledgement that one has accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and understands what that means for their life. An analogy: One does not put a child in a baseball game until that child is old enough to understand that, during the game, he/she is not to pick dandelions or chase butterflies.
We do that in a baby dedication ceremony, where the parents and the entire congregation promise to work together to raise the child in the faith.
And it is incumbent on all of us to search the Scriptures, to be sure that what we hear is correct, IOW to be like the Bereans. My plea, if you will, is for us to stop taking doctrinal disagreements as an excuse for insults and infighting. Christians world-wide need, for one old example, to stop arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Stop claiming that there's something "less" about Christians who have a different name on the door of their church building.
And if that is how you choose to baptize, no problem. The problem is with non-Catholics having problems with how Catholics and early Christians baptize. And by the way...you've never seen babies at baseball games?
I don't see them catching fly balls in the outfield or running the bases, no.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are they with the rest of the family at the ballgame? Another question, is how many decisions do parents make for their children? Does the child decide when to go to school or what s/he wants to learn in school? Does the child even decide on his own bedtime? Do we wait to read to a child until the child is old enough to decide what s/he wants to hear? Do parents wait until a child is old enough to decide whether he wants to meet his grandparents, his aunts and uncles, and cousins? Or, being an actual member of the family, all of the above is a given for parents to decide?
