A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.

[descout]

No the Bible does not mention anything on the mentally challenged but it does on babies. Please look at my previous post which has Scripture specifically about babies. I understand where some say you have to make a choice but I don’t see that in the Bible. I don’t see the early Christians holding that belief. Some like to dismiss the early practice of the Church. Those however are the ones who were taught by the Apostles. Those were the ones who knew what Jesus wanted. Baptizing babies began with Jesus command to Baptize ALL.

I don’t see you as arguing. What you wrote helps to further understanding.

100 percent right. You must make a choice. Every day we must say Yes. That is a free will choice we must make over and over.

 

[guanophore]

All households have infants all the time?

I am sure they did not, but since the Apostles understood Baptism to replace circumcision as the entrance rite into the New Covenant, they would have no reason to withhold it from infants.

In fact, the arguement in the early church was not about whether the infants should be baptized but whether the 8 days should be observed as in the OT.

 

[guanophore]

And common sense would say if only 5 families are mentioned out of the many thousands of adults that were baptized there’s a high degree of possibility that those families did not have infants. Now if there were hundreds of ‘households’ mentioned that were baptized, then you’d have an argument.

No, I think not. If even one Apostle baptized even one infant, as the Apostle John did Polycarp, then I think that is a clear message.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

**I see you can’t answer a simple yes or no and how did you turn around apply my own words towards me? The household thing don’t bother me. That is all Catholics can go by to justify infant baptism from the Bible. **

Likewise,because you still have failed miserably to show me where the Bible restricts baptism to age-reasoning adults ONLY.

And your example of adults being baptized does not bother me at all either,because no where does it restrict it to them alone.And?

And that is all Baptists can go by to JUSTIFY ADULT-ONLY baptism or a ‘believers-only’ baptism. Oh and they must be adults ONLY.

Here’s from a previous post

Matt.28:19-20
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

The word teach in Matt. 28:19 is translated from the Greek matheteuo which means to make disciples.
The word teaching in Matt.28:20 is translated from the Greek didasko which means to instruct.

So what Christ is telling us to do here is to go into the world and make disciples of all nations and then He tells us how we are to do that and that is by instructing them in all things I have commanded you and we are to do this before we baptise them. Why do you think this is. It would be my guess that because baptism is a profession of faith in Jesus Christ and what He did for us. We have to know exactly who and what it is we are professing faith in. A baby is not capable of understanding the instructions necessary in order to become a disciple of Christ and therefore cannot be baptised.

---

In Christ Richard

This is further displayed in Acts 8:12But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

But I think the place were it really shows the manner of baptism and what is required for a person to be baptised is again in Acts 8: 26And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

27And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; **what doth hinder me to be baptized? **

**37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. **

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Phillip tells us what is required in order to be baptised "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest"

Babies cannot do this.

 

[kepha1]

100 percent right. You must make a choice. Every day we must say Yes. That is a free will choice we must make over and over.

Fair enough, descout, but it begs the question. When did we make the free will choice to commit Original Sin? We didn’t. Therefore Original Sin does not require a free will choice to have it removed.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Now starts the name calling by saying you were and continue to be “ignorant” of my x-faith. Now I have not said anything that disrespects you. But you are showing the loving way Catholics are. If we disagree with the CC we are ignorant.

Psalm 51:5 - I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. We have inherited Adam’s sin from the moment of our conception. This is why babies need baptism – to wash away the original sin inherited from Adam and Eve.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came into the world through one man, Adam, and death came through this sin. This sin affects all people, men and women, babies and adults. Through the merits of Jesus Christ, we have the sacrament of baptism to wash away the sin that came through Adam.

Rom. 5:14 - death reigned from Adam to Moses, born from Adam’s original sin. This is a mystery we do not fully understand, but we must all acknowledge our propensity toward evil and our need of God.

Rom. 5:16 - the judgment following one single trespass brought condemnation for all. This means all have inherited the sin of Adam, and all must be washed clean of this sin in the waters of baptism.

Rom. 5:19 - by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners. Original sin is passed on as part of the human condition, and only God in the flesh could atone for our sins by the eternal sacrifice of Himself. Through this sacrifice, God has re-opened the doors to heaven, and through baptism, we are once again made children of God.

1 Cor. 15:21 - for by one man came death. In Adam, all die. In Christ, the new Adam, all now may live.

Eph. 2:1-3 - we were all dead through sin and all lived in the passions of our flesh until Christ came to save us. Scripture Cathloic

 

[Nicea325]

**If the Bible isn’t important, why read parts of it each Mass? If It’s not important why are so many songs sung at Mass based on the Bible? **

Listen to what you are saying here. If it is not important to the Catholic Church,then why would it even bother to include it in the liturgy? DUH! Evidently it is important.

 

[Dokimas]

I am sure they did not, but since the Apostles understood Baptism to replace circumcision as the entrance rite into the New Covenant, they would have no reason to withhold it from infants.

In fact, the arguement in the early church was not about whether the infants should be baptized but whether the 8 days should be observed as in the OT.

I respectfully disagree. The apostles understood no such thing.

 

[Dokimas]

**Doki: ]If the Bible isn’t important, why read parts of it each Mass? If It’s not important why are so many songs sung at Mass based on the Bible?[/SIGN] **

Listen to what you are saying here. If it is not important to the Catholic Church,then why would it even bother to include it in the liturgy? DUH! Evidently it is important.

No, you listen (reread) to what the statements were that I commented on. My EXACT the point was that the CC uses the Bible which shows It’s importance. The Bible is extremely important. It’s the only collection of documents from the first church members the gives us eye witness accounts of Jesus. I’ll take eye witness accounts over any other accounts. Seems many of you have forgotten the vital importance of eye witness accounts. Give me the Bible over ANYTHING else.

 

[elvisman]

Water: being born.

Being born?
If you’re speaking of amniotic fluid in the womb - you’re WAY off base. Nicodemus asked what must a man do to be born again - not be born the first time.

-2nd = I’m not that up on that part of the law for the Hebrews. I do believe your question has nothing to do with this discussion because baptism is not the replacement for circumcism, IMO, as I look at the Bible on the issue.

Then, why does Paul speak of the "circumcision of the heart" when speaking of baptized believers?

 

[Nicea325]

No, you listen (reread) to what the statements were that I commented on. My EXACT the point was that the CC uses the Bible which shows It’s importance.

No need to re-read anything,because as a Catholic I do not need a non-Catholic telling me what is important to the church.

The Bible is extremely important. It’s the only collection of documents from the first church members the gives us eye witness accounts of Jesus.

Yeah,but Christianity didn’t evolve out of a book,but out of a person called Jesus.

** I’ll take eye witness accounts over any other accounts. **

Typical non-Catholic.Disregard anything outside of the Bible as false.

Seems many of you have forgotten the vital importance of eye witness accounts. Give me the Bible over ANYTHING else

As noted,Jesus didn’t teach the written word is our only source of truth.

 

[elvisman]

He never left the church. Heb 13:5​

We leave Him and we sometimes misunderstand.

Doki -are you serious?
You’re not even answering the questions. You’re just spewing out non sequitors.
What in the world do these “answers” have to do with my post?

 

[elvisman]

Seeing that the church is made of people it can be prone to the error of the people leading it, as protestants know first hand.

**The Church is the Body of Christ and is, therefore, unable to err in doctrinal matters. **
Can Christ err? No - and neither can his Body, which is inseparable from him.

 

[elvisman]

That’s not what I agreed to.

Then what DID you agree to?

They are NOT the same***.***

That is what you agreed to – now you’re changing your story.

He never changes***.***

**That is ****PRECISELY **what you implied.

The Bible doesn’t speak of the ‘C’ church because it wasn’t around when the letters of the NT were written.

PRECISELY**. **
The bible doesn’t make a distinction between small “c” Catholic and capital “C” Catholic like Protestants do.
There is NO difference. The catholic Church is the Catholic Church.

 

[PeaceSerenity]

PRECISELY.
The bible doesn’t make a distinction between small “c” Catholic and capital “C” Catholic like Protestants do.
There is NO difference. The catholic Church is the Catholic Church.

You can argue that at the time there was no difference, however now there is definitely a difference. The Catholic church cannot be the catholic (or universal) church at the point where there are different Christian churches. That doesn’t mean you can’t believe that it’s the “fullness of the faith” or whatever.

In the end, though, it really doesn’t matter. Dokimas, you still not articulating what exactly you oppose about infant baptism, or about the way the church is given authority. You’re spewing facts and statements but they don’t link together.

 

[Dokimas]

Being born?
If you’re speaking of amniotic fluid in the womb - you’re WAY off base. Nicodemus asked what must a man do to be born again - not be born the first time.

Then, why does Paul speak of the "circumcision of the heart" when speaking of baptized believers?

Look at the context:

John 3:
1 ¶ There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

Notice in verse 6 Jesus explains verse 5: first birth (water) is born of flesh; second birth is being born of the Spirit. We are all born once. To see the Kingdom of God we must be born again (of the Spirit).​

Romans 2:
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Notice no mention of baptism here. However, Paul seems to show here ritual practices mean nothing without a real happening in the heart of a person.​

Col 2:
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Notice there are two distinct things mentioned: circumcism of the heart which is the real way Jesus deals with our sin by His Broken Body and Shed Blood. Then there’s baptism which is the outward sign that we’ve chosen to respond to Jesus’ work on our behalf and in us.​

 

[Dokimas]

Nicea in black; Doki in color.

No, you listen (reread) to what the statements were that I commented on. My EXACT the point was that the CC uses the Bible which shows It’s importance.

No need to re-read anything,because as a Catholic I do not need a non-Catholic telling me what is important to the church. Then you choose to not understand what went on. Your choice.

The Bible is extremely important. It’s the only collection of documents from the first church members the gives us eye witness accounts of Jesus.

Yeah,but Christianity didn’t evolve out of a book,but out of a person called Jesus. Correct. **The letters which turned into the Book is for those of us that never had the chance to see Jesus face to face that **( Joh 20:31) “… these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

** I’ll take eye witness accounts over any other accounts. **

Typical non-Catholic.Disregard anything outside of the Bible as false. **Please show me where I said that. ** **If you can’t (I never said that so you won’t be able to) then maybe you’ll think twice about making wild accusations. ** Maybe not.

 

[PeaceSerenity]

In the Old Testament, circumcision was the means by which a Jew entered into the covenant of Abraham. In the New Testament, it is baptism which marks our entrance into the kingdom of God, the beginning of our Christian life. Just as Jewish boys were circumcised as infants, so also the children of Christian parents are baptized as infants. St. Paul makes this explicit link between circumcision and baptism:

In [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)

Would argue that we should exclude Children from the family of God? Do we make babies live outside of our homes, out in the cold ? “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16) There is absolutely no room here to make an argument that children must wait until some magical age before they too can be included with full rights into the Church and at the altar table. Jesus was once an infant Himself. And Jesus was never separate from God, even in His mother’s womb.

The assumption behind the objection to infant baptism, that children cannot understand the faith, is that faith is a product of reason. Remember, “out of the mouths of babes and sucklings have I perfected praise”, God can work through little children. For the adult convert to the Church, intellectual consent is crucial, but faith falls flat if it does not go beyond individual reason. It falls flat because it is so individualized, exclusive, and self-centered. Our relationship with God is valid only if it is realized in communion with the whole Church, and children can accept that, they understand what it means to be a part of a family.

Our modern world treats children not fully human, or are at least treated less seriously than adults because they can’t think like we do (the basis behind abortion). Christ Himself sanctified every age as God-bearing, since He was as much the perfect Word of God as an infant as when He was a grown man.Their baptisms are as significant to them and to God as adult baptisms. Even if they do not cognitively understand what that baptism means, they are certainly capable of intuitively understanding it.

Note: I got lots of ideas in this post from lots of places, I won’t list them here, just so you know, I’m not plagiarizing…

 

[Dokimas]

Then what DID you agree to?

That is what you agreed to – now you’re changing your story.

**That is ****PRECISELY **what you implied.

Guess there’s no point continueing with destortions of what I said. Have a nice day.

 

[Dokimas]

**Doki **-are you serious?
You’re not even answering the questions. You’re just spewing out non sequitors.
What in the world do these “answers” have to do with my post?

Match them up and I’ll explain. If you don’t bring them together, no wonder you don’t understrand.