T
tweetymom
Guest
Very true.
A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.
- Status
M
Matthew_P_Muehl
Guest
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Can you give me a verse in the Bible about Christians go into churches to get their babies baptised on the faith of the parents?
M
Matthew_P_Muehl
Guest
So now you say that Christ may have been a LIAR when he said the holy spirit would guide his church in TOTAL truth???
Matthew
L
LionHeart777
Guest
:tiphat:
Gracias. Early Church history means a lot to me. It was something that really challenged my previous interpretations of Scripture. The ECF’s writings led me to the Catholic/Orthodox junction. Obviously, I became convinced of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (Catholic understanding.)
peace.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
reverand kevin,
can you give us one that forbids it?
R
rev_kevin
Guest
answer my question without a question. seems like you are dodging my question.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Respectfully,
to those who reject infant baptism; the only responses I have seen to the historical proof that the early Church baptised infants are:
a) calling them “your” Church Father’s, which may imply there were others. The men we are talking about were either appointed Bishops by the Apostles themselves or appointed by those who were. The only other “Christians” I can think of that were around were the heretics.
b) they were wrong. I can more relate to this response. If this is your position, are you willing to entertain the possibility that you may be wrong?
to those who reject infant baptism; the only responses I have seen to the historical proof that the early Church baptised infants are:
a) calling them “your” Church Father’s, which may imply there were others. The men we are talking about were either appointed Bishops by the Apostles themselves or appointed by those who were. The only other “Christians” I can think of that were around were the heretics.
b) they were wrong. I can more relate to this response. If this is your position, are you willing to entertain the possibility that you may be wrong?
L
Loboto-Me
Guest
Let’s just consider something else
The apostles are talking to a bunch of jewish converts who enjoyed the priviledge of belonging to the old covenant seal. They and their children (including 8 day old babies) were part of God’s covenant for about 2 thousand years before Jesus. Suddenly a new covenant comes along, and the seal of this covenant is baptism. Now if the new covenant was to be enjoyed in the same manner as the old covenant there would naturally be no mention of babies being baptised because it was presumed from the start.
The baptism of children is just implied and no big deal was made about babies or children because including children and babies was a natural part of the any covenant with God to begin with. You don’t mention something that’s already there. There’s very little said in relation of baptism of infants in the NT because there’s no real alteration other than a different “style” of covenant seal… one was by the knife, now it’s by water.
Jesus didn’t repeal the covenant to the babies of God’s people. To think that Jesus would deny what the Old Covenant Jews had in the first covenant would not be in Jesus’ style. He would not tell these jews that their well loved children are to be withdrawn from the covenant or to be held back until they’re older. If He had, there would be writtings on the reasons the children are to be held back and not just a few short sentences either. There would have been many reasons to explain why Jesus was not allowing these babies who enjoyed one covenant, not to be allowed to enjoy another covenant.
Now remember, these jews were told that the only way to be saved was through a new covenant with Christ who deemed baptism a huge part of His ministry. But yet, rather than a huge deal being made about the exclusion of their children, all that is done is to assure the first Christians that “the promise was still to them and their children;” and not JUST to them but also to “as many as the Lord their God should call”
The apostles are talking to a bunch of jewish converts who enjoyed the priviledge of belonging to the old covenant seal. They and their children (including 8 day old babies) were part of God’s covenant for about 2 thousand years before Jesus. Suddenly a new covenant comes along, and the seal of this covenant is baptism. Now if the new covenant was to be enjoyed in the same manner as the old covenant there would naturally be no mention of babies being baptised because it was presumed from the start.
The baptism of children is just implied and no big deal was made about babies or children because including children and babies was a natural part of the any covenant with God to begin with. You don’t mention something that’s already there. There’s very little said in relation of baptism of infants in the NT because there’s no real alteration other than a different “style” of covenant seal… one was by the knife, now it’s by water.
Jesus didn’t repeal the covenant to the babies of God’s people. To think that Jesus would deny what the Old Covenant Jews had in the first covenant would not be in Jesus’ style. He would not tell these jews that their well loved children are to be withdrawn from the covenant or to be held back until they’re older. If He had, there would be writtings on the reasons the children are to be held back and not just a few short sentences either. There would have been many reasons to explain why Jesus was not allowing these babies who enjoyed one covenant, not to be allowed to enjoy another covenant.
Now remember, these jews were told that the only way to be saved was through a new covenant with Christ who deemed baptism a huge part of His ministry. But yet, rather than a huge deal being made about the exclusion of their children, all that is done is to assure the first Christians that “the promise was still to them and their children;” and not JUST to them but also to “as many as the Lord their God should call”
L
LionHeart777
Guest
rev kevin,
I apologize for dodging. I made this statement earlier:
“Will you agree that if the Bible does not specifically address infant baptism, than it does not specifically forbid it either? As you can see by others posts, a case can be made for the Catholic view(s) on Baptism on a Scriptural basis. To me, regarding the Scriptural evidence for infant baptism, this is a case of one of our beliefs being reflected in Scripture but not necessarily explicitly taught in Scripture (see my comments on the Bible as an instruction manual below.)”
My view is that it is something that is not explicitly taught in Scripture, however, one could argue that it is reflected in Scripture and most definately taught by the earliest Christian writers we have on the subject. Therefore I believe that the Catholic/Orthodox position is correct (and consequently those Protestants who retained the belief of the Catholic Church.)
I apologize for dodging. I made this statement earlier:
“Will you agree that if the Bible does not specifically address infant baptism, than it does not specifically forbid it either? As you can see by others posts, a case can be made for the Catholic view(s) on Baptism on a Scriptural basis. To me, regarding the Scriptural evidence for infant baptism, this is a case of one of our beliefs being reflected in Scripture but not necessarily explicitly taught in Scripture (see my comments on the Bible as an instruction manual below.)”
My view is that it is something that is not explicitly taught in Scripture, however, one could argue that it is reflected in Scripture and most definately taught by the earliest Christian writers we have on the subject. Therefore I believe that the Catholic/Orthodox position is correct (and consequently those Protestants who retained the belief of the Catholic Church.)
M
Matthew_P_Muehl
Guest
R
rev_kevin
Guest
If it is not taught in the Scritpute, or speciffically addressed then where did the CC get the idea about infant baptism?
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Another dodge. I asked the question now its you who has the burden to show me I’m wrong. If you can.
L
Loboto-Me
Guest
Thomas needed to put his fingers into Christ’s wounds, does that mean He wasn’t crucified until Thomas had proof?
N
Nicea325
Guest
**Can you give me a verse in the Bible about Christians go into churches to get their babies baptised on the faith of the parents? **
No where does Scripture state an absurd question. And can you tell me where the Bible explicitly says Christians should go into churches to get married?
No where does Scripture state an absurd question. And can you tell me where the Bible explicitly says Christians should go into churches to get married?
N
Nicea325
Guest
**If it is not taught in the Scritpute, or speciffically addressed then where did the CC get the idea about infant baptism? **
And where does Scripture explicitly state baptism is for adults ONLY who make an intelligent decision to accept Jesus? Where do Baptists get that novel belief?
BTW:Where does Scripture teach Christ gave mere men the authority to create 39,000 different non-Catholic churches?
And where does Scripture explicitly state baptism is for adults ONLY who make an intelligent decision to accept Jesus? Where do Baptists get that novel belief?
BTW:Where does Scripture teach Christ gave mere men the authority to create 39,000 different non-Catholic churches?
P
PeaceSerenity
Guest
From the beginning of Christian history, families have been baptized together, with no mention of children getting baptized separately.
“… she [Lydia] and the members of her household were baptized…”
(Acts 16:15)
“… immediately he [the jailer] and all his family were baptized.”
(Acts 16:33)
“… I [the apostle Paul] also baptized the household of Stephanas…”
(I Corinthians 1:16)
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children…” (Acts 2:38-39)
The passage from Acts 2 directly proves the idea that children can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Also look at Psalm 8 “Out of the mouths of babes and nursing infants have I perfected praise”.
The earliest explicit reference to child or infant baptism is in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, about 215 A.D.: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”
Also, the rebaptism of adults should not be done by the church because that is the point of the period of Lent. It is to rededicate ourselves to Christ, and to focus on our spiritual lives. We have already been baptized once, we don’t need to go through the dunking again to remind ourselves that we are His.
“… she [Lydia] and the members of her household were baptized…”
(Acts 16:15)
“… immediately he [the jailer] and all his family were baptized.”
(Acts 16:33)
“… I [the apostle Paul] also baptized the household of Stephanas…”
(I Corinthians 1:16)
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children…” (Acts 2:38-39)
The passage from Acts 2 directly proves the idea that children can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Also look at Psalm 8 “Out of the mouths of babes and nursing infants have I perfected praise”.
The earliest explicit reference to child or infant baptism is in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, about 215 A.D.: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”
Also, the rebaptism of adults should not be done by the church because that is the point of the period of Lent. It is to rededicate ourselves to Christ, and to focus on our spiritual lives. We have already been baptized once, we don’t need to go through the dunking again to remind ourselves that we are His.
R
RockyRoad
Guest
May I ask a question?
What does anyone think happens to a 2 week old baby that dies before being baptized?
Please…limbo is not necessarily an answer. The CC has NEVER taught that limbo of the infants is doctrinal. But merely theological musings. The apologists here at CAF have answered this question before and have stated such. Pope JPII also held out the hope that they would see heaven.
Rocky
What does anyone think happens to a 2 week old baby that dies before being baptized?
Please…limbo is not necessarily an answer. The CC has NEVER taught that limbo of the infants is doctrinal. But merely theological musings. The apologists here at CAF have answered this question before and have stated such. Pope JPII also held out the hope that they would see heaven.
Rocky
P
PeaceSerenity
Guest
A baby cannot decide whether he or she will be baptized so why would God judge them for that? God is mercy, and even His justice is loving. Plus, as I said above, nobody can really say who will be saved, it’s all up to God.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
rev kevin, first you (a Catholic convert to Protestantism), should understand that I (a convert to Catholicism with a former self-described “Baptityrrean” Theology), don’t function by Sola Scriptura.
I would argue, infant Baptism was passed down to the Church the Apostles. Undeniably the Early Church baptised infants.
My evidence:
(a) The ECF’s who support the idea and seem to have practised it
(b) the apparent absence of any opposition to the writers cited by Elvis Man
(c) the fact that Origen specifically said so:
“‘The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit’ (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).”
(catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp) (accessed 4/ 5/ 10)
What I posted in post 235, explains, although maybe in part, why I reject the Baptist view of baptism (which I formerly held.)
- Status