R
RockyRoad
Guest
I’ll give you that. But it doesn’t mean it was a correct way. I’m glad you used past tense in referring to it.
A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.
- Status
R
RockyRoad
Guest
Thanks…I wasn’t sure they spoke for everyone. I was hoping for all in the discussion to answer. Everyone does seem to have a very strong stance. I was hoping they would answer the question individually. I see that elvis did. Heading off for now.Your question was answered by 2 different people already… somewhere up there
God bless all
E
elvisman
Guest
- Repent and be baptized, A infant can’t repent.**
Mark 16:16 “Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved.”
A infant can’t make the decission to believe.
Acts 2:38 “Each of you must trun from your sins and turn to God and be baptized…”
Matthew 3:11 "I baptize with water those who turn from sin and turn to God."
*Luke 3:3 "Then John went from place to place on both sides of the Jordan River, preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.
A infant can’t make the decission to turn from sin.
**An infant *****can’t ***make a covenant with God.
An infant can’t make the decision to be circumcised.
An infant can’t perform any of the rituals prescribed by the Mosaic Law.
This is why the Parents of those infants did these things for them and raised them in their Jewish faith – just as the parents of the Catholic child do so on their behalf.
**Just as Jesus is the FULFILLMENT of the Old Covenant, the Church is the ****FULFILLMENT ****of Israel, the Body and Bride of Christ. **
T
TobyLue
Guest
This is thing, that if the ECFs were wrong about Infant Baptism, then its possible that they could have been wrong about canonizing the Bible, because the Bible did not canonize itself. And if they could possibly have been wrong about that, then they would have been wrong about NOT making sure that “Baptizing Infants” was specifically mentioned.I know this does not make any sense but actually it makes more sense than the answers we have received from the “its not in the bible so I won’t believe it” believers. If the ECF’s were wrong then we actually are up a creek without a paddle because there is not a shred of evidence in the Bible that Jesus ever commanded anybody to write down the Bible.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Reread what you wrote, you never used the word “you”
T
TobyLue
Guest
If people keep insisting and refusing to believe because “its not in the Bible”, then why believe the Bible at all because nowhere in the Bible is it written that the Bible is the Bible.
P
PeaceSerenity
Guest
TobyLue definetly has a point. I don’t think you can do a sola scriptura approach while deny the beliefs of those that put together the scriptura
R
rev_kevin
Guest
We are not talking about the Jewish faith. Where in the bible does it say that parents can make these decissions for them? Can a infant make those decissions?
What does your last statement have to do with infant baptism?
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Not going for the “they assumed” that it didn’t need to be mentioned. They mentioned everything eles about baptism but didn’t think they needed to mention about infants being baptized. If it was important that we know they would have mentioned it.
P
PeaceSerenity
Guest
Where in the bible does it say that parents cannot make that decision? If you look at my post, above, I provided several examples from the New Testament which referred to entire families converting together, there was no mention of infants being excluded because they couldn’t consciously make the choice. Even Calvin and Luther believed in child baptism.
“Out of the mouths of babes and nursing infants have I perfected praise” (Psalm 8). Children are an integral part of the church, they should not be separated by a lack of baptism.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
The Bible is a title, It is not mentioned in the Bible because at that time there was no Bible.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
P
PeaceSerenity
Guest
My point was, until you provide some specific reasons for why infant baptism is wrong or not scriptural, the burden of proof remains on you. Infant baptism was the status quo for over 1000 years, those challenging it must have specific objections. There is no mention in Scripture of the practice of Christian parents waiting to baptize their children until they are older either, btw
“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself’” (Acts 2:38,39) Adults are not the only ones who can be endowed with the gift of the Holy Spirit and be accepted into the church.
“Now I did baptize the household of Stephanas …” (I Corinthians 1:16)
(An angel spoke to Cornelius saying) “Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is called Peter, brought here; and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, and all your household.” (Later, when Peter arrived at Cornelius’ household) “…he ordered them to be baptized.” (Acts 11:13b, 14; Acts 10:48a)
“And when she (Lydia of Thyatira) and her household had been baptized…” (Acts 16:31, 33b)
The Greek work orikos, translated “house” or “household,” has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek, or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for “house” carries the sense of the entire family.
These are examples from scripture alone, if you look at church history, there are dozens more. Also, do not discount the tradition set by the Old Testament since circumcision was merely a symbol, or foreshadowing of baptism:
“And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism…”
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Perhaps they were not writing an instruction manual
Did they explicitly mention the mode of baptism (immersion, pouring, sprinkling)?
to somewhat echo PeaceSerenity rev kevin;
I have answered your ? that I dodged. Will you answer the question I used in dodging your question?
Where does the Bible explicitly forbid infant baptism?
L
LionHeart777
Guest
We are in total agreement. While I believe in infant baptism…I also believe that Jesus has invincible love for the infants. If the CCC holds on to the possibility of non-Christians through invincible ignorance…how can the same not be especially true for those that are born to Christian parents who intend to bring up the child in the faith of Christ?
Of course, I plan to have my 2 year old daughter baptised soon in case I’m wrong. I missed the buzzer for her to be baptised with me at the Easter Vigil.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
I answered it in another post but here you are No it don’t.Perhaps they were not writing an instruction manual
Hebrews 6:2 “You don’t need futher “instruction” about baptism…”
Did they explicitly mention the mode of baptism (immersion, pouring, sprinkling)?
No it don’t.
to somewhat echo PeaceSerenity rev kevin;
I have answered your ? that I dodged. Will you answer the question I used in dodging your question?
Where does the Bible explicitly forbid infant baptism?
L
LionHeart777
Guest
thank you. Please forgive my smart allecness btw in the last post.
At least we have seem to have some common ground;
you agree that it’s not explicitly forbidden and I agree that it is not explicitly taught. That’s probably as close as we will come to an agreement for now.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
My point w/ the “instruction manuel” comment, my smart aallecness aside, was that I don’t believe that the Bible is a “do it yourself” manual; neither does it read like one IMO.
It is not unreasonable to believe that the writer of Hebrews would have been aware that the Apostles baptised infants (if it wasn’t written by an Apostle.)
It is not unreasonable to believe that the writer of Hebrews would have been aware that the Apostles baptised infants (if it wasn’t written by an Apostle.)
R
rev_kevin
Guest
My point was, until you provide some specific reasons for why infant baptism is wrong or not scriptural, the burden of proof remains on you. Infant baptism was the status quo for over 1000 years, those challenging it must have specific objections. There is no mention in Scripture of the practice of Christian parents waiting to baptize their children until they are older either, btw
Repent and let each of you be baptized. Now who can a infant repent? That is one thing you need inorder to be baptized. So when it says the whole household it means the ones who are able to understand what is being said to them and the ones who are able to repent. A infant can’t understand what is being said or taught too them and they can’t repent eather.
“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself’” (Acts 2:38,39) Adults are not the only ones who can be endowed with the gift of the Holy Spirit and be accepted into the church.
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off. For your children when they are abel to repent and understand what is being taught to them.
“Now I did baptize the household of Stephanas …” (I Corinthians 1:16)
(An angel spoke to Cornelius saying) “Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is called Peter, brought here; and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, and all your household.” (Later, when Peter arrived at Cornelius’ household) “…he ordered them to be baptized.” (Acts 11:13b, 14; Acts 10:48a)
Acts 10:47-48 “Can anyone object to their being baptized, now tha they ahve received the Holy Spirit just as we did? So he gave orders for them to be baptized in the naame of Jesus Christ. Afterward Cornelius adked him to stay with them for several days.” Now a infant can’t object because they don’t know what is going on. He ordered the ones who were able to object to be baptized.
Acts 11:13 “He told us how an angel had appeared to him in his home and had told him, Send messengers to Joppa to find Simon Peter, 14 He will tell you how you and your household will be saved.” He will tell them how to be saved. They did not get baptized here.
“And when she (Lydia of Thyatira) and her household had been baptized…” (Acts 16:31, 33b)
Acts 16:29 “Trembling with fear, the jailer called for lights and ran to the dungeon and fell down before Paul and Silas. 30 He brought them out and asked. Sir what must we do to be saved? 31 They replied. Beleive on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved along with your entire household. Then they shared the word of the Lord with him and all who lived in his household.”
How can a infant believe and when they shared the word of the Lord how did the infant understand what was being said?
orikos- A relative (those) of the (his own) house (-hold)
The Greek work orikos, translated “house” or “household,” has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek, or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for “house” carries the sense of the entire family.
These are examples from scripture alone, if you look at church history, there are dozens more. Also, do not discount the tradition set by the Old Testament since circumcision was merely a symbol, or foreshadowing of baptism:
“And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism…”
E
elvisman
Guest
So, you can’t answer my challenge either.
This is VERY telling of the Protestant posters on this thread.
Not ONE of you has been able to answer the challenge.
- Status