Age Of Accountability

[selek]

There's really no point in discussing it. You labor under the impression that Catholic theology sprung up fully formed in the First Century, much like Athena from Zeus's head, and I won't disabuse you of that lest I be subjected to the usual bulletpoints.

What!?!? Has no one hooked Johnny up to a wind turbine yet?

I thought we were about to solve the energy crisis.

Dagnabit- there you go again smashing my hopes and dreams (and Johnny's fantasies).

[johnny]

Aquilifer

There's really no point in discussing it. You labor under the impression that Catholic theology sprung up fully formed in the First Century, much like Athena from Zeus's head, and I won't disabuse you of that lest I be subjected to the usual bulletpoints.

Infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church. For example consider Irenaeus who upheld infant baptism as apostolic. Irenaeusâ?? writings below affirms that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated. He was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that timeâ??Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.

• - Irenaeus "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
  
• -
  
• "â??And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordanâ?? [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: â??Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heavenâ?? [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
  

[Aquilifer]

Man, I didn't elaborate and I still got bulletpointed.

[johnny]

Bat-Man

I find it very strange that most people tend to focus on being born of water, or baptism, without really getting into what it means and why it is imporant to be born of the spirit (of God).

What does it mean to be born of the spirit (of God) and how are people born of the spirit (of God)?

Only Jesus was born of the spirit (of God) as an infant. Only Jesus was born of a virgin.

All infants are born of the flesh, all infants have a mother and a father who are flesh. Jesus is the only exception. A person must be born again to enter into the kingdom of God, John 3 says,

• John.3 ([6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
  

[Bat-Man]

Bat-Man

What does it mean to be born of the spirit (of God) and how are people born of the spirit (of God)?

In my perspective, and according to my understanding: To be born of the spirit (of God) is to be born again through the power of the Holy Spirit, and how that is accomplished is by the reception of the Holy Ghost through an ordinance involving the laying on of hands by those who have the authority to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Only Jesus was born of the spirit (of God) as an infant. Only Jesus was born of a virgin.

Are you saying that you believe Jesus is the only person who will enter the kingdom of heaven, because only he was born of the spirit (of God)?

... or are you saying that everyone else but Him is an exception to the rule that everyone must be born of water and of the spirit (of God) to enter the kingdom of heaven?

All infants are born of the flesh, all infants have a mother and a father who are flesh. Jesus is the only exception. A person must be born again to enter into the kingdom of God, John 3 says,

• John.3 ([6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
  

Being "born again" involves two distinct rebirths: being born again of water, and (being born again) by the spirit (of God).

Being born again of water, alone, will not qualify anyone to enter the kingdom of heaven, because our Lord requires that we must be born again of water and born again by the spirit (of God).

What do you think it means to be born of the spirit (of God), and how do you suppose a little baby can be qualified to enter the kingdom of heaven?

[johnny]

Bat-Man

In my perspective, and according to my understanding: To be born of the spirit (of God) is to be born again through the power of the Holy Spirit, and how that is accomplished is by the reception of the Holy Ghost through an ordinance involving the laying on of hands by those who have the authority to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost.

From my perspective: The gift of the Holy Ghost can be given at baptism (Acts 2:38) and it can be given through the laying on of hands. For Catholics baptism of water and confirmation (laying on of hands) can be two distinct events or combined together. Baptism cause us to be born again and confirmation (laying on of hands) increases the gift of the Holy Ghost that is given at baptism.

Are you saying that you believe Jesus is the only person who will enter the kingdom of heaven, because only he was born of the spirit (of God)?

I am saying that Jesus is the only infant that was born of the spirit. I am NOT saying Jesus is the only person who will enter the kingdom of heaven.

... or are you saying that everyone else but Him is an exception to the rule that everyone must be born of water and of the spirit (of God) to enter the kingdom of heaven?

Correctâ?¦

Being "born again" involves two distinct rebirths: being born again of water, and (being born again) by the spirit (of God).

I would not say there their are â??two distinct rebirthsâ?. There are two distinct baptisms, one with water and one with the Holy Ghost. Baptism brings about the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Through baptism we are reborn as sons of God through the spirit of Adoption. Baptism unites us to Christ and gives us the Holy Spirit.

Being born again of water, alone, will not qualify anyone to enter the kingdom of heaven, because our Lord requires that we must be born again of water and born again by the spirit (of God).

Baptism qualifies a person to enter the kingdom of heaven because baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16) so that a person can be clean to enter the kingdom of heaven (Eph 5:5).

What do you think it means to be born of the spirit (of God), and how do you suppose a little baby can be qualified to enter the kingdom of heaven?

To be born of the spirit (of God) means to receive the Spirit of adoption, to become a child of God (Rom 8:15,16). A little baby is qualified by being baptized with water because baptism washes away sins and causes them to be in Christ, born again as a child of God.

[Bat-Man]

Bat-Man

From my perspective: The gift of the Holy Ghost can be given at baptism (Acts 2:38) and it can be given through the laying on of hands.

I agree, but the act or ordinance of giving the gift of the Holy Ghost is a separate and distinct act from that of baptism, and when the gift of the Holy Ghost is given, it is ALWAYS given through the laying on of hands by those who have the authority to give that gift.

For Catholics baptism of water and confirmation (laying on of hands) can be two distinct events or combined together.

From my perspective, baptism of water is ALWAYS the act of immersing a person in water (whereas you and members of the Catholic Church generally accept sprinkling as a valid form of baptism) in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and confirmation (laying on of hands) is a separate and distinct act of a man who has the proper authority placing his hands upon a person's head to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In your mind, how do you conceive of a person baptizing another person while also confirming (laying hands on that person's head) to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost at the very same moment in time?

That is something I would like to see if for no other reason than to satisfy my own curiousity.

Baptism causes us to be born again and confirmation (laying on of hands) increases the gift of the Holy Ghost that is given at baptism.

Yes, but those are two different and distinct acts, in my perspective.

I am saying that Jesus is the only infant that was born of the spirit. I am NOT saying Jesus is the only person who will enter the kingdom of heaven.

So are you saying that infants who are baptized by members of the Catholic Church are not born of the spirit (of God) by the act of confirmation (laying on of hands) to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost ?

Correctâ?¦ (... or are you saying that everyone else but Him is an exception to the rule that everyone must be born of water and of the spirit (of God) to enter the kingdom of heaven?)

So, in your perspective, not only are infants an exception to our Lord's requirement to be born of water and the spirit (of God) to enter the kingdom of heaven (as I believe), but everyone else is also an exception, even if persons are baptized in water and given the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands ???

That seems to be what you are saying to me.

I would not say there their are â??two distinct rebirthsâ?. There are two distinct baptisms, one with water and one with the Holy Ghost.

That seems to me to be another way to say what I was saying, in essence.

Baptism brings about the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

In what sense do you think immersion in water (or sprinking with water) "brings about the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

I say that unless a person is confirmed a member of the Church by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost, immersion in water (or sprinking with water), itself and alone, doesn't do any good whatsoever other than to show that a person is willing to abide by that commandment to be baptized or immersed (or even possibly sprinkled) in water.

The water itself doesn't cleanse anyone from any sin. The cleansing comes through the power of the Holy Ghost as a person receives the Holy Ghost and the commandments they are given by God.

Through baptism we are reborn as sons of God through the spirit of Adoption.

Baptism by fire through the power of the Holy Ghost does that, Yes, I agree, but not baptism in water.

It's just water, and water, alone, has no power to cleanse a person from any sin.

The cleansing is done by God, through the power of the Holy Ghost, which is given through the ordinance of the laying on of hands.

Baptism unites us to Christ and gives us the Holy Spirit.

To which baptism are you referring?

Baptism in water, or baptism in the power of the Holy Spirit, aka baptism by fire?

Baptism qualifies a person to enter the kingdom of heaven because baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16) so that a person can be clean to enter the kingdom of heaven (Eph 5:5).

Baptism by fire, or the power of the Holy Ghost, does that, Yes, but baptism (or immersion, or sprinking) in water does no such thing whatsoever.

To be born of the spirit (of God) means to receive the Spirit of adoption, to become a child of God (Rom 8:15,16).

Yes, and that is accomplished by the laying on of hands as the gift of the Holy Ghost is bestowed and received.

A little baby is qualified by being baptized with water because baptism washes away sins and causes them to be in Christ, born again as a child of God.

I think you should give some more thought to distinguishing the act of baptizing in or with water and the act of confirmation (laying on of hands to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost). Even if you do one act right after the other, they are still two separate actions. You seem to think baptism in water is the very same thing as baptism by fire, or the power of the Holy Ghost, and with that I do not agree.

There are some facets of this issue in which we do seem to agree in principle (in part), but we still differ somewhat in that regard because while I believe you have the right idea (in part) I believe you do not have the authority to administer those ordinances, which is pretty much what you would say about me and other LDS, I presume.

[johnny]

Bat-Man

I agree, but the act or ordinance of giving the gift of the Holy Ghost is a separate and distinct act from that of baptism, and when the gift of the Holy Ghost is given, it is ALWAYS given through the laying on of hands by those who have the authority to give that gift.

In Acts 2:38 the gift of the HG was given without the laying on of hands.

• Acts.2 ([38] 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.)
  

In your mind, how do you conceive of a person baptizing another person while also confirming (laying hands on that person's head) to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost at the very same moment in time?

It is not at the very same moment in time, confirmation immediately follows baptism.

Yes, but those are two different and distinct acts, in my perspective.

It appears your perspective is not consistent with Acts 2:38.

So are you saying that infants who are baptized by members of the Catholic Church are not born of the spirit (of God) by the act of confirmation (laying on of hands) to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost ?

Through baptism infants are reborn as sons of God.

So, in your perspective, not only are infants an exception to our Lord's requirement to be born of water and the spirit (of God) to enter the kingdom of heaven (as I believe), but everyone else is also an exception, even if persons are baptized in water and given the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands ???

Those baptized in water are born of water and of the Spirit.

The water itself doesn't cleanse anyone from any sin. The cleansing comes through the power of the Holy Ghost as a person receives the Holy Ghost and the commandments they are given by God.

The gift of the Holy Ghost is received at baptism, Acts 2:38 says "be baptized ... and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost".

To which baptism are you referring?

Baptism in water, or baptism in the power of the Holy Spirit, aka baptism by fire?

Jesus is the one who baptizes "with the Holy Ghost and with fire" (Matt 3:11). When we are baptized it Christ himself who is at work.

I think you should give some more thought to distinguishing the act of baptizing in or with water and the act of confirmation (laying on of hands to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost). Even if you do one act right after the other, they are still two separate actions. You seem to think baptism in water is the very same thing as baptism by fire, or the power of the Holy Ghost, and with that I do not agree.

Through baptizing in water a person is born of water and of the Spirit. Through confirmation (laying on of hands) the gift of the Holy Spirit that is received at baptism is increased. By Baptism a person is born anew and by Confirmation a person is strengthened.

[tomfoolery]

Bat-Man

In Acts 2:38 the gift of the HG was given without the laying on of hands.

Acts 8:14-19 would flat out disagree with you.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

19 Saying, Give me also this apower, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:38 can also be interpreted as saying: (note that I've change a word to make my interpretation clearer)

38 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 be given the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost comes after baptism by the laying on of hands. And Acts 8:14 shows that someone in authority had to do it.

[johnny]

tomfoolery

Acts 8:14-19 would flat out disagree with you.

Acts 8:14-19 reveals that the Holy Ghost had not fallen on them because of a invalid baptism. Upon meeting the apostles they received the Holy Ghost when the apostle laid hands on them.

Acts 2:38 can also be interpreted as saying: (note that I've change a word to make my interpretation clearer)

You are distorting Acts 2:38 to make it fit your belief.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost comes after baptism by the laying on of hands. And Acts 8:14 shows that someone in authority had to do it.

Acts 2:38 reveals the gift of the Holy Ghost is from baptism. Acts 8:14 reveals that the apostles were able to give the Holy Ghost through hands.

[tomfoolery]

tomfoolery

Acts 8:14-19 reveals that the Holy Ghost had not fallen on them because of a invalid baptism. Upon meeting the apostles they received the Holy Ghost when the apostle laid hands on them.

You are distorting Acts 2:38 to make it fit your belief.

Acts 2:38 reveals the gift of the Holy Ghost is from baptism. Acts 8:14 reveals that the apostles were able to give the Holy Ghost through hands.

You assume that the Holy Ghost comes right with baptism but this shows that they were first baptized and then they needed someone to give them the GotHG. It says nothing about an invalid baptism.

You can try to spin it all you like, but it's pretty clear in saying that the Gift of the Holy Ghost comes after baptism by the laying on of hands.

[johnny]

tomfoolery

You assume that the Holy Ghost comes right with baptism but this shows that they were first baptized and then they needed someone to give them the GotHG. It says nothing about an invalid baptism.

I believe the apostle Peter, he says "be baptized ... and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost".

In Acts 8 it was an invalid baptism because they were "only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus". A valid baptism is "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

[Bat-Man]

Bat-Man

In Acts 2:38 the gift of the HG was given without the laying on of hands.

• Acts.2 ([38] 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.)
  

Yes, Peter did tell those people they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost after those people were baptized, but Peter didn't expound upon how those people would receive that gift after they were baptized, at least not in that statement you are citing.

You seem to be presuming that gift was given automatically, with no other action or effort taken to give those people that gift, but elsewhere in the scriptures and through modern revelation we are told how that gift is given when it is given, which is through the laying on of hands by those who have the authority to give that gift, thus, from our (LDS) perspective, we know that those who were baptized on that day of Pentecost were given the gift of the Holy Ghost by those who were authorized to give those people that gift, and that it was given through the laying on of their hands.

You may choose to disagree, or not believe me, of course, but what I have told you is true.

It is not at the very same moment in time, confirmation immediately follows baptism.

I agree. First a person is baptized (immersed in water), and then that person has hands laid upon him/her by a man who has the authority to give that person the gift of the Holy Ghost.

That is how it is done.

It appears your perspective is not consistent with Acts 2:38.

Appearances can be deceiving.

Through baptism infants are reborn as sons of God.

Through baptism by fire, aka confirmation, aka receipt of the Holy Ghost, Yes, but not by simply being dunked in (or sprinkled with) water.

Those baptized in water are born of water and of the Spirit.

Those baptized in water, alone, are only baptized in water, aka born (again) in water, Yes, but to be born of the Spirit a person needs to be given, and receive, the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The gift of the Holy Ghost is received at baptism, Acts 2:38 says "be baptized ... and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost".

Yes, and I have told you how that was done.

Jesus is the one who baptizes "with the Holy Ghost and with fire" (Matt 3:11).

True, through the administration of those who have His authority to perform the ordinance of confirmation.

When we are baptized it Christ himself who is at work.

True, if we are baptized properly and through the authority that is given to men by Christ.

Through baptizing in water a person is born of water and of the Spirit.

Yes, as long as the person who has been baptized in water is also confirmed by the reception of the Holy Ghost.

Through confirmation (laying on of hands) the gift of the Holy Spirit that is received at baptism is increased. By Baptism a person is born anew and by Confirmation a person is strengthened.

Not true, in my perspective. Baptism (immersion in or sprinkling with) water does not convey the gift of the Holy Ghost. To receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, a person must be confirmed a member of Christ's true Church through men laying their hands upon those who have Christ's authority to give the baptized person that gift.

I believe I have made myself clear now, but if you still have trouble understanding me, just let me know and I will try to explain it better for you.

Just realize there is absolutely nothing I can do to make you believe me.

[johnny]

Bat-Man

You may choose to disagree, or not believe me, of course, but what I have told you is true.

I choose to disagree with you because you are not consistent with the plain words of Acts 2:38, apostolic tradition, and the modern revelation of the Catholic Church.

[Bat-Man]

Bat-Man

I choose to disagree with you because you are not consistent with the plain words of Acts 2:38, apostolic tradition, and the modern revelation of the Catholic Church.

I am in agreement with Acts 2:38, even though I am not in agreement with your interpretation of Acts 2:38.

The fact that Peter told those people they should repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, can be reasonably interpreted to mean that the people Peter was talking to were then expected to:

1) Repent... one action, or step, involving certain procedures

2) Be baptized... another action, or step, involving certain procedures

3) Receive the Holy Ghost... another action, or step, involving certain procedures.

... and there is nothing to preclude the idea that the receipt of the Holy Ghost would involve the laying on of hands by those who were in authority to give that gift to them, even though you would seem to prefer to think it would be given automatically, with no other action or procedures involved, other than to repent and be baptized.

You, yourself, said that in the Catholic Church there are two separate actions, or procedures... first you baptize, and then you do the confirmation... so why are you having so much trouble accepting the idea that baptism and confirmation are two different actions, or procedures ???

Your personal argument against this idea doesn't make much sense to me, johnny.

I would think you would be able to easily recognize that what I am saying is true, and that your argument against me and this idea would be that we (LDS) simply don't have the authority to do what you and your (Catholic) Church are doing, yourselves.

[johnny]

Bat-Man

3) Receive the Holy Ghost... another action, or step, involving certain procedures.

It says " ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" ... your interpretation does not agree with the plain words of Acts 2:38.

[Bat-Man]

Bat-Man

It says " ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" ... your interpretation does not agree with the plain words of Acts 2:38.

Yes, my interpretation of Acts 2:38 does agree with the plain words of Acts 2:38.

You simply don't seem to see that Peter does NOT say, in that statement, HOW they would receive that gift.

Those who repented and were baptized DID receive the gift of the Holy Ghost... by their consent to receive that gift through the laying on of hands of men who had the authority to give them that gift.

They didn't receive that gift merely by being immersed in or sprinkled with water, and they also didn't receive that gift merely by repenting from all of their sins.

When a person repents from all of their sins, they still need to be baptized, just as when a person is baptized in water for the remission of sins, they still need to receive the ordinance of confirmation, aka the baptism by fire.

If repentance from sin was all that it took to be saved from our sins, there would be no need for us to be baptized in water, or anything else, and if repentance from sin and baptism in water was all that it took to be saved from our sins, there would be no need to receive the ordinance of confirmation to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I am in agreement with the scriptures on this issue. I'm simply not in agreement with you.

Baptism comes in two different stages: First in water, and then by fire.

[johnny]

Bat-Man

You simply don't seem to see that Peter does NOT say, in that statement, HOW they would receive that gift.

You simply don't seem to see the clear imagery that Jesus gave us at his baptism, after he was baptized the Holy Ghost descended upon him.

[Bat-Man]

Bat-Man

You simply don't seem to see the clear imagery that Jesus gave us at his baptism, after he was baptized the Holy Ghost descended upon him.

Our Lord's situation was different because He was/is the one who had/has the power to give ALL of us the gift of the Holy Ghost, as John (the Baptist) bore witness.

John's baptism in water wasn't enough all by itself, because by itself it didn't convey the gift of the Holy Ghost, but He who came after him did have the power to baptize by fire, as well as by water, even before He was baptized in water by John.

The Holy Ghost came down after our Lord's baptism in water through the sign of the dove merely to bear witness of Him to John, as did our Father, through His own voice.

[johnny]

Bat-Man

John's baptism in water wasn't enough all by itself, because by itself it didn't convey the gift of the Holy Ghost, but He who came after him did have the power to baptize by fire, as well as by water, even before He was baptized in water by John.

Was John's baptism enough to "wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16)?

• Acts.22 ( [16] And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.)
  
• -
  
• Titus.3 ([5] Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; [7] That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.)