O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
**Zeke the “Jesus Freak”: **Hey, Cathy, why do Catholics baptize babies? It’s pointless since babies don’t know what’s going on and can’t repent, according to Acts 2:38 and Mark 6:16.
**Cathy the Catholic: **But where in the bible does it specifically “prohibit” the Baptism of babies?
**Zeke: **Well, I guess it never says that. But…
**Cathy: **But don’t you only follow what’s plainly taught in the pages of Scripture?
**Zeke: **It’s a conclusion that follows from ideas that are clearly in Scripture. It’s still a biblical doctrine.
**Cathy: **Ah! That’s a big difference. Now we are both in the same boat, since the bible doesn’t explicitly teach about baptism of infants. We must make inferences. Catholics maintain that there are many strong indications of our view.
**Zeke: **Where? I’ve never seen any in seventeen years of being saved.
**Cathy: **In Acts 16:15, 33, 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 1:16, it is stated that an individual and his whole household were baptized. It would be hard to say this involved no small children. Paul in colossians 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38; Romans 9:4). Circumcision, given eight day old boys, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Gal. 3:14, 29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Rom. 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults were (Gen. 17:7; Deut. 29:10-12; Matt. 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant of Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did. (Deut 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 9:25; Rom. 2:28-29; Phil 3:3). Infants are wholly saved by God’s grace, just as adults are, only apart from their rational and willful consent. Their parents act in their behalf.
**Zeke: **That’s not possible. You have to repent and be born again in order to receive salvation, as John 3:5 says.
**Cathy: **It doesn’t exactly say that. It says that one “must be born of water and the Spirit”. Catholics along with the Church Fathers such as Augustine and many Protestants (Lutherans and Anglicans), interpret this as a reference to baptism, and a proof of the necessity of infant baptism.
**Zeke: **That doesn’t make sense. Water here refers to the amniotic sac when a baby is born. Babies can’t be born again.
**Cathy: **Are you saying then that a baby can’t be saved and will go to hell if he dies before the “age of reason”?
**Zeke: **No, no. I would never say that. God is too merciful to let that happen.
**Cathy: **But you believe in Original Sin (1 Cor. 15:22), inherited by all people from the fall of Adam, right?
**Zeke: What are you getting at?
Cathy: **Once you say that a baby can be saved, then clearly there is justification for baptizing infants.
**Zeke: **Now wait a minute, surely you don’t believe this, it is only a symbol!
**Cathy: **You Evangelicals always seem to deny that matter can be a conveyor of grace and too often frown on the idea of the Sacraments, which are physical, visible means whereby grace is conferred.
**Zeke: **We don’t believe in those things because they are not biblical. The bible talks about the Spirit giving grace (John 6:63), not matter. Catholics are always getting weird about things such as statues, relics, rosary beads, the water of communion, the holy water. This usually generates into idolatry.
**Cathy: **I disagree. God himself took on flesh in Christ. Paul’s handkerchiefs healed the sick (Acts 19:12), as did Peter;s shadow (Acts 5:15). Likewise, baptism is said to regenerate sinners. Acts 2:38 speaks of being baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. 1Peter says “Baptism now saves you”…Paul seems to imply an organic connection between baptism, sanctification, and justification, whereas Evangelicals seperate all three. Titus says that “he saved us…by the washing of regeneration.” What more biblical proof is needed? Is this all to be explained as symbolic?
**Zeke: **I gotta run…I have some questions for my pastor.
**Cathy the Catholic: **But where in the bible does it specifically “prohibit” the Baptism of babies?
**Zeke: **Well, I guess it never says that. But…
**Cathy: **But don’t you only follow what’s plainly taught in the pages of Scripture?
**Zeke: **It’s a conclusion that follows from ideas that are clearly in Scripture. It’s still a biblical doctrine.
**Cathy: **Ah! That’s a big difference. Now we are both in the same boat, since the bible doesn’t explicitly teach about baptism of infants. We must make inferences. Catholics maintain that there are many strong indications of our view.
**Zeke: **Where? I’ve never seen any in seventeen years of being saved.
**Cathy: **In Acts 16:15, 33, 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 1:16, it is stated that an individual and his whole household were baptized. It would be hard to say this involved no small children. Paul in colossians 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38; Romans 9:4). Circumcision, given eight day old boys, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Gal. 3:14, 29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Rom. 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults were (Gen. 17:7; Deut. 29:10-12; Matt. 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant of Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did. (Deut 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 9:25; Rom. 2:28-29; Phil 3:3). Infants are wholly saved by God’s grace, just as adults are, only apart from their rational and willful consent. Their parents act in their behalf.
**Zeke: **That’s not possible. You have to repent and be born again in order to receive salvation, as John 3:5 says.
**Cathy: **It doesn’t exactly say that. It says that one “must be born of water and the Spirit”. Catholics along with the Church Fathers such as Augustine and many Protestants (Lutherans and Anglicans), interpret this as a reference to baptism, and a proof of the necessity of infant baptism.
**Zeke: **That doesn’t make sense. Water here refers to the amniotic sac when a baby is born. Babies can’t be born again.
**Cathy: **Are you saying then that a baby can’t be saved and will go to hell if he dies before the “age of reason”?
**Zeke: **No, no. I would never say that. God is too merciful to let that happen.
**Cathy: **But you believe in Original Sin (1 Cor. 15:22), inherited by all people from the fall of Adam, right?
**Zeke: What are you getting at?
Cathy: **Once you say that a baby can be saved, then clearly there is justification for baptizing infants.
**Zeke: **Now wait a minute, surely you don’t believe this, it is only a symbol!
**Cathy: **You Evangelicals always seem to deny that matter can be a conveyor of grace and too often frown on the idea of the Sacraments, which are physical, visible means whereby grace is conferred.
**Zeke: **We don’t believe in those things because they are not biblical. The bible talks about the Spirit giving grace (John 6:63), not matter. Catholics are always getting weird about things such as statues, relics, rosary beads, the water of communion, the holy water. This usually generates into idolatry.
**Cathy: **I disagree. God himself took on flesh in Christ. Paul’s handkerchiefs healed the sick (Acts 19:12), as did Peter;s shadow (Acts 5:15). Likewise, baptism is said to regenerate sinners. Acts 2:38 speaks of being baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. 1Peter says “Baptism now saves you”…Paul seems to imply an organic connection between baptism, sanctification, and justification, whereas Evangelicals seperate all three. Titus says that “he saved us…by the washing of regeneration.” What more biblical proof is needed? Is this all to be explained as symbolic?
**Zeke: **I gotta run…I have some questions for my pastor.
for the inclusion. Thanks, OTCA.