The reasoning behind that is very simple and I have to admit, I agree with.

 

Baptism is a personal decision that ONLY YOU CAN MAKE.

 

And you didn't make it. Your parents decided it for you.

 

You and ONLY you can choose to be baptized.

 

 

I can understand that, but when I professed my faith I recognized Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, which is the same thing you do when you are baptised minus the water. At that moment I became a member of my church(keep in mind after I accepted Christ, I met with the church leaders and talked about my feelings and beliefs before I professed my faith). I have always believed that the actual baptism doesn't save you, it is simply the symbolism of the washing away of one's own self. The saving grace comes the moment you truly accept Christ.

Doesn't make any sense to me. If you were baptized as an infant, and are a practicing member of the church, why would you need to be baptized again?

 

There are people that don't believe or accept people who are baptized as infants as true baptism.

So since one must to choose to be baptized at an older age, anyone who was baptized as an infant was not legitimately baptized? What are the consequences of not getting baptized?

 

I don't believe that there are consequences for not being baptized, I believe the consequences come when you do not accept Jesus Christ.

From what I understand of what LBBC said, if you don't choose to be baptized than it doesn't count. Personally, I think living like Christ is much, much more important than the actual event of getting baptized.

 

What did your first Pope tell the crowd in Acts?

From what I understand of what LBBC said, if you don't choose to be baptized than it doesn't count. Personally, I think living like Christ is much, much more important than the actual event of getting baptized.

 

I don't believe that there are consequences for not being baptized, I believe the consequences come when you do not accept Jesus Christ.

 

Let's see what Jesus Christ says. You would agree that he is a pretty good source on the matter, right?

 

Matthew 28

The Great Commission

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

 

From that, Jesus sure indicates that both are important. Not sure how you can get anything different out of it.

 

And I would agree that not accepting Jesus Christ, your PERSONAL CHOICE (right?), is where things go wrong. From the Scripture the act of accepting Jesus Christ, your PERSONAL CHOICE (right?), is baptism.

There are people that don't believe or accept people who are baptized as infants as true baptism.

 

Would you agree that accepting Christ is a personal choice?

Would you agree that only you can make that personal choice?

If your answer it yes, to both of the above, how can your parents choose for you as an infant?

 

If others can choose for you, than right now, I CHOOSE that every single person on this planet accepts Christ as their Lord and Savior and we don't have to worry about anyone going to Hades.:thumb:

That's what I'm saying. If you go and get baptized at age 30, but don't attend church or live a Christ-like life, then how is that better than the guy who was baptized as an infant who follows Christ's example in all walks of life?

 

I am not comparing the two. Each is Scripturally wrong.

 

In my best Tom Cruise from A few Good Men voice......

 

If infant baptism is okay, than why the personal acceptance at 13? WHy the two orders? If baptism is acceptable and covers, why the need for the ceremony at 13? Why the two orders, Colonel Jessup?

Let's see what Jesus Christ says. You would agree that he is a pretty good source on the matter, right?

 

Matthew 28

The Great Commission

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

 

From that, Jesus sure indicates that both are important. Not sure how you can get anything different out of it.

 

And I would agree that not accepting Jesus Christ, your PERSONAL CHOICE (right?), is where things go wrong. From the Scripture the act of accepting Jesus Christ, your PERSONAL CHOICE (right?), is baptism.

 

I don't see anywhere in your passage that says infant baptism doesn't count. You're on base on the issue of choice/free will, but I think that it's a choice as to whether or not you want to follow Christ's teachings that's important more so than actually choosing to be baptized.

Old recollections here so I may be not be remembering correctly, but wasn't Smith's given profession that of a magician and treasure seeker who used "magic" stones to help locate hidden treasures? And then used these magic stones to translate the Book Of Mormon from some plates he found in the ground? I know I recall reading something about him placing the stones in a hat and jamming his face into the hat to receive some of the visions/revelations (I remember thinking this was rather funny). And I recall somewhere reading that Smith was convicted for practicing magic and conning someone out of money (I think they found the actual arrest record). Wasn't he thrown in jail for sending a mob to shut down a newspaper after they wrote stories about his polygamist activities?

 

Wow, I have never heard of the magic stones, the magician, or none that crap :ohbrother:you are saying. Smith's occupation at the time was what most in his time were, farmers. I guess as he grew older, he could have changed the occupation on his 1040 to minister or preacher, but I doubt that magician and treasure hunter was among them. I would be very interested in seeing the actual arrest record if you could find it (pm it to me). I doubt seriously there is one.

Let's see what Jesus Christ says. You would agree that he is a pretty good source on the matter, right?

I'm considering replying but I'm not sure if it is worth it. Is there a problem, LBBC? Any other backhand comments you want to get out before I reply? I would have thought that I had gained enough respect to not deserve comments like that, but I guess not....

Proof that Mormonism is real.

I am not comparing the two. Each is Scripturally wrong.

 

In my best Tom Cruise from A few Good Men voice......

 

If infant baptism is okay, than why the personal acceptance at 13? WHy the two orders? If baptism is acceptable and covers, why the need for the ceremony at 13? Why the two orders, Colonel Jessup?

 

 

If you have read the previous threads on this subject, you'll remember that Catholics believe in Original Sin. The stain of sin must be washed away before ANYONE can enter heaven. Thus, if a baby dies unbaptized, they will not see the face of God. Thus, we protect the souls of infants by baptizing them at birth. After a child reaches the a "age of reason", and after at least a year of preparation, a child may choose to continue in the Catholic faith, of their own free will. But, as parents, we took care of the original sin, and ensured our innocent childs ability to go to heaven by baptizing them at birth.

I am not going to argue the points of your version of christianity, after all, how could I since they are your views. However, your points on mormons are worthy of debate. In a previous post, you said Smith was a fraud. How so? Please give examples of your knowledge of such. I walked the walk of the mormon for years, so I know a little of which I speak.

 

My version of Christianity is simply the accepted foundations that every true Christian "denomination" believes. Regardless of their differences on various doctrinal issues like wearing head coverings, or not having musical instruments in church, or infant baptism, or whether you can fall from grace, etc...when it comes to the core doctrines, particularly pertaining to God and Jesus Christ, their beliefs are the same.

 

As for Joseph Smith, I'm not going to delve too deep into this, particularly the questions regarding his character in life. I'll just say this...any man who claims to receive a revelation from God that contradicts the Bible and supersedes the Bible is a fraud. That's what Joseph Smith did. End of Story.

 

To your point that only one was founded by a God-man. What does that mean? Please help me understand. I consider myself a God fearing Christian. Does that make me a God-man as well?

 

Jesus Christ is the author of Christianity. He was both God and a man.

Joseph Smith is the founder of Mormonism. He's only a man.

Muhammad founded Islam. He's only a man.

Any other religion you want to name was founded by a man.

 

To the point about springing the basis of their faith on you later. Simply not true. Every potential convert to Mormonism has to buy in early about Joseph Smith, up front or they can not be baptised in the faith. Fact is, many a potential convert can not get past that and turns away from the teachings of the church.

 

When they proselytize potential converts, what exactly do they tell them? Do they tell people that God was a man from another planet who became a god? That he has a wife (a goddess, if you will) and that they produced spiritual offspring? That Jesus, Satan and the rest of us are part of those offspring? Thus, Jesus is a created being, not the eternal creator as the Bible tells us. Do they tell people that they too can become a god? Just curious.

 

Please understand that I am not trying to attack your comments, just understand your process. Who knows, maybe you can shed some light on a few things that I have wondered about myself.

 

No offense taken. And, hopefully I haven't offended you. But, I'm just telling you what I believe. A person can argue all they want about Mormonism and Joseph Smith being right and true. That's fine. I don't believe that and never will. I just take exception to Mormonism being grouped in with Christianity. Guess I take Jude's command to "earnestly contend for the faith" serious in this instance...

Proof that Mormonism is real.

 

Joseph Smith was called a prophet, dum dum dum dum dum

He started the Mormon religion, dum dum dum dum dum

 

Many people believed Joseph, dum dum dum dum dum

And that night he saw and angel, dum dum dum dum dum

 

He found the stones and golden plates, dum dum dum dum dum

Even though nobody else ever saw them, dum dum dum dum dum

And that's how the Book of Mormon was written, dum dum dum dum dum

...

 

Martin went home to his wife, dum dum dum dum dum

And showed her pages from the Book of Mormon, dum dum dum dum dum

 

Lucy Harris smart smart smart smart, Martin Harris dumb

 

So Martin went back and told Smith the pages had gone away

Smith told Martin that he had to go and pray

 

:lol:

Guys, can we move the Catholic vs. Protestant debate to another thread? I love the debate, but would like to focus more on Mormonism in this thread.