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

[Dokimas]

Only to the uneducated.

Romans 3:10, 23 explicitly states: “There is no one righteous, not even one; For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.”
Oh, really? How about babies or toddlers below the age of reason? What about those who are mentally challenged and may not have full use of their intellect and will? What about Jesus? St. Paul is speaking about those who trust in the Mosaic Law for their salvation.
**In this passage, St. Paul is actually quoting Psalm 14, where it says, "The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” Later in the same Psalm, we hear that “God is present in the company of the “righteous.”
St. Paul was using inclusive language. This would be similar to somebody saying that “everybody in town” came to the carnival last year. He is referring to the mass of mankind but God can and does make exceptions for anybody he wishes.

You used a lot of words so let me try to narrow your answer down: you seem to be saying that not ALL have sinned as Romans 3:23 states reminding all of us that infants can’t sin.​

Let’s used the same logic for infant baptism: you said infants must have been baptized because the verse said ALL in the housefold were baptized. Could it be that ‘all’ there meant all who meets the criteria for baptism: belief and repentance?

 

[Dokimas]

CLASSIC cop-out.
**However - I pasted the text in the last post, so you *DID ***read it.

And you accused me a few weeks ago of not having a good sense of humor. Gee, looks like it’s your turn to not see humor when posted.

 

[Dokimas]

In your opinion.
Fortunately, Christians don’t need to follow your opinion. We have the Scriptures:

Correct they don’t; but many follow your opinion and the opinion of the CC.

 

[elvisman]

You used a lot of words so let me try to narrow your answer down: you seem to be saying that not ALL have sinned as Romans 3:23 states reminding all of us that infants can’t sin.
They can’t. But my answer was more far-reaching than that. You seem to have overlooked the Psalm that Paul was referring to. In it, it says the that FOOL said these things* (there is no God, all have sinned, none is good).*​

Let’s used the same logic for infant baptism: you said infants must have been baptized because the verse said ALL in the housefold were baptized. Could it be that ‘all’ there meant all who meets the criteria for baptism: belief and repentance?

That’s a fair question that deserves a fair answer:
ALL early Christians were converts - whether it was the head of the household or ALL in the house. Households included parents, children, servants and slaves.
**There is no clarification as in Romans 3:23/Psalm 14. **

 

[Dokimas]

In your opinion.
Fortunately, Christians don’t need to follow your opinion. We have the Scriptures:

Col. 2:11-13
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.
You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
And even when you were dead (in) transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions;

---

Remeber - NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious than the OT type.

Looks like there’s still two distinct things: circumcism of the heart (male and female can get their hearts circumcized) and baptism. NO mention in your verses that one takes the place of the other.

 

[elvisman]

Correct they don’t; but many follow your opinion and the opinion of the CC.

**I never offer my opinions when I discuss the faith of the Church. **
**I only present what the Church teaches - which are not opinions, but God-given, authoritative declarations. **

**The Church is the Body of Christ and “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) - not Elvisman.

 

[Dokimas]

That’s a fair question that deserves a fair answer:
ALL early Christians were converts - whether it was the head of the household or ALL in the house. Households included parents, children, servants and slaves.
There is no clarification as in Romans 3:23/Psalm 14.

Fair answer but IMO still missing something to truly separate the two. Oh well, time to move on.

 

[Dokimas]

I never offer my opinions when I discuss the faith of the Church.
I only present what the Church teaches - which are not opinions, but God-given, authoritative declarations.

The Church is the Body of Christ and *“the pillar and foundation of truth” *(1 Tim. 3:15) - not Elvisman.

There are fellow catholics that differ from you sometimes. Maybe you opinion of exactly what the CC teaches on specific topics is incorrect. Or maybe the CC isn’t 100% accurate in all it’s teachings (opinions - remember opinions don’t have to be incorrect; if they match up with God’s intentions, they are not incorrect).

 

[elvisman]

Looks like there’s still two distinct things: circumcism of the heart (male and female can get their hearts circumcized) and baptism. NO mention in your verses that one takes the place of the other.

Now, you’re playing semantic games as these verses clearly show the replacement of circumcision with baptism.

Whereas only males were circumcised in the Old Covenant (which was completely male-dominated) - ALL are baptized in the New Covenant.

Like I said, NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious than the OT types. This is ALWAYS the case.
That is why Augustine said, "The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New."

 

[elvisman]

There are fellow catholics that differ from you sometimes. Maybe you opinion of exactly what the CC teaches on specific topics is incorrect. Or maybe the CC isn’t 100% accurate in all it’s teachings (opinions - remember opinions don’t have to be incorrect; if they match up with God’s intentions, they are not incorrect).

Again - I never offer my own opinions - only what the Church has taught for 2000 years under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[elvisman]

Fair answer but IMO still missing something to truly separate the two. Oh well, time to move on.

HARDLY time to move on. This is the crux of the debate.

PS - I have to leave for a few hours to attend a Good Friday meal at my mother’s house.
I’ll be back later this afternoon. Have a solemn and blessed Good Friday everyone.

 

[Loboto-Me]

** A Jewish is any individual whose mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, etc. in that line were of the religion of the Jewish. Also if an individual was converted to Judaism in a way that is accepted by the Israeli authorities, he or she and all his or her children qualify to be Jewish.**

When Abraham made a covenant with God, there was a mark of circumcision which the community adopted and all male children in the community were to undergo it. Up to the present day, all male children undergo circumcision on the eighth day in the synagogues.

A Berit Bat or Simchat Bat Takes Place When…?
Naming baby girls is held on the first Sabbath day after she is born. It is not a steadfast rule; though it should take place anywhere from a month to two months after the child is born.

Because being jewish came from the female side of the family, there was no need for a sign of the covenant between God and the girl child.

But as you will see, Catholics and some non-catholic religions carry on the tradition of infants being part of the family and give them the gift of baptism (circumcision of the heart). We as christians are the the continuation of the jewish faith, we are deeply entertwined and follow many of the jewish celebrations, as Jesus did such as "baptism of our babies (instead of circumcision of our babies), sacrifice, and so on and so forth… Christianity is a parallel of the jewish traditions that Christ embraced and progressed into what He wished for us.

 

[Dokimas]

Now, you’re playing semantic games as these verses clearly show the replacement of circumcision with baptism.

**Whereas only **males were circumcised in the Old Covenant (which was completely male-dominated) - ALL are baptized in the New Covenant.

Like I said, NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious than the OT types. This is ALWAYS the case.
That is why Augustine said, "The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New."

Could you show me the exact wording, highlight it please, in the verses you quoted that states baptism replaces circumcism? BTW, all (male and female) have wicked hearts that need the circumcism of the heart as your verse says. So, in the NT, both males and females get circumcized because it is not the foreskin of the male anatomy but the sinfulness of the heart that needs circumcised.​

BTW, no playing with words at all. IMO, you’ll have to do some ‘fancy work’ to get those verses to say that baptism replaces circumcism. But as we all know, I’ve been wrong before; no brag, just fact.

 

[Dokimas]

Again - I never offer my own opinions - only what the Church has taught for 2000 years under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Again, you may have a catholic or two or more on CAF that may disagree with you on that.

 

[tweetymom]

Again, you may have a catholic or two or more on CAF that may disagree with you on that.

Like me .

 

[Loboto-Me]

Could you show me the exact wording, highlight it please, in the verses you quoted that states baptism replaces circumcism? BTW, all (male and female) have wicked hearts that need the circumcism of the heart as your verse says. So, in the NT, both males and females get circumcized because it is not the foreskin of the male anatomy but the sinfulness of the heart that needs circumcised.​

BTW, no playing with words at all. IMO, you’ll have to do some ‘fancy work’ to get those verses to say that baptism replaces circumcism. But as we all know, I’ve been wrong before; no brag, just fact.

11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead. 13 And you, when you were dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh; he hath quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences:

Remember that baby boys were circumcised at 8 days old, notice the old operation of God (His covenant to His people was shown by circumcision) became renewed in Christ through baptism instead… notice baptism forgives all offences.

Also, remember that those who repented and baptised (those mentioned in the bible) had heard the word and believed, yet they mentioned all of these people’s household being baptised. Not the whole of these people’s households had heard the word of Christ yet but they were baptised all the same. The grace was given these “unbelievers” so that they could grow in faith if they chose to.

Another point, back then you have to remember that there wasn’t much in the form of birth control, and often whole extended families lived together, reason would tell you that there must have been at least 1 or 2 very young ones in that “Household”. Common sense!

 

[rev_kevin]

If you are asking for evidences from the Bible… i.e. show me an infant with faith; Show me an example of someone in the Bible who is regenerate yet does not possess faith in God? Is being an infant, or mentally disabled now an automatic ticket to heaven irrespective of their state as children of Adam and separate from God? Faith is a supernatural trust in God. It is not something that can be reduced to bare mental faculties. It is not mathematics, physics, or language. It is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit upon an individual’s heart and soul. The Holy Spirit is capable of working faith in whomever He pleases, regardless of their mental state. You are letting human reason and logic dictate Scripture.
I didn’t say from the Bible any infant anywhere. So your saying that God will not allow a child/infant into heaven if they don’t have faith. What kind of God do you think he is. He is a God of mercy and if they are uncapable of knowing faith then his mercy takes over. I disagree with you on the reguardless of their mental state. If they don’t have the mental ability to understand faith then they can’t have faith in something they would not understand.

So the Holy Spirit is incapable of indwelling any other infant than John? Did God choose Jeremiah when he was an infant, or an adult? Did Jeremiah leap in his mothers womb like John did? I never said the Holy Spirit didn’t dwell in infant’s. I said they can’t have faith because they don’t know what it is.

What does anything I remember have to do with the action of God in Baptism?

If you can’t remember being an infant then how do you know you had faith.

 

[Loboto-Me]

You have to remember faith wasn’t needed for the little ones or the slaves yet, their faith came after baptism if they wished it… Whole households were baptised.

Boy you sure are stuck on having faith, babies whether they are born with faith or not, need to have the sin of Adam taken away… baptism is the new covenant of God for us.

 

[elvisman]

Like me .

He said, Catholics - NOT heterodox, would-be, pretend “Catholics” . . .

 

[rev_kevin]

Do you know for sure there WEREN’T?
Why would Paul and Peter baptize ENTIRE households if Baptism was only for a believer? The household of a centurion like Cornelius would include spouses, children, servants and probably slaves - yet they were ALL baptized on the faith of Cornelius.

Just as in the case of Cornelius and Stephanas, infants are baptized to remove original sin by the faith of their parents. The Church Fathers knew this APOSTOLIC TRADITION well and that’s why they also taught it - as I already showed you.

Ummm . . . I think I just DID (above).

It cracks me up when anti-Catholics who try to prove Sola Scriptura make the challenge:
Show me a tradition that isn’t explicitly in Scripture.
Then, when we show you guys things like infant baptism, you reject it.

Isn’t it time you face the fact that you are simply anti-Catholic and not Pro-Adult Baptism?

First of all I am not anti-Catholic so lets get that straight right now. The answer about if there were infants in the household is you don’t know its possible that there were and its possible that there weren’t. Just say you don’t know there is no shame in that.