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

[Masters_Servant]

The Catholic Church Baptizes infants. Show me the Biblical authority to do this?

Where does it say in Holy Scripture, “Do not Baptize infants”? Show me the Biblical authority NOT to Baptize infants?

Jesus Christ said in Matt 28:19, “GO, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…”
He did not say adults only did he? Did he ever put an age limit to receive Baptism?

It is not a question of Baptizing infants; for in doing so you miss the entire Biblical point of the reason for water baptism, which an infant cannot possibly understand. So get them wet all you want; they will dry and I do not think it will harm them.

 

[guanophore]

Those after the NT letters were written (after the 1 century) — Yes, IMO.

So Doki? What happened to that very powerful sounding Jesus in Revelation who spoke to the Churches? How is it that He lost His power or interest in keeping His One Body, the Church, on the right track? How come He was able to intervene in the yr. 100 AD, but just a few years later could no longer do so? It sounds like you are Mormon in your belief about the Great Apostasy.

 

[guanophore]

Without reading into a statement by Jesus, could you produce the verse where Jesus says one must be baptized in water to enter Heaven?

Are you at all familiar with the context of Jn. 3?

The Apostles never separated the HS from the water. That is why Peter ORDERED WATER when he saw the HS had been given. The two are joined.

Were does Jesus say babies need to be baptized?

Do you think that Peter was departing from Jesus’ instruction when he told the people the promise was for them, and their children?

 

[guanophore]

The beauty of the Bible is that it shows (name removed by moderator)erfections of many of the important leaders like Peter. I don’t expect the ECF to get it 100% correct. That doesn’t minimize their value.

I agree with you on this point. Their writings are not considered inspired (inerrant), but they do have value. In this case, one of the values is how they show what was taught and practiced by the Apostles.​

• To be the stedfast catholic you are, you have to have ignor any good argument against a teaching. You see, for you the CC is all correct and there can’t be anything less. Too bad.

No, it does not make a good Catholic to “ignore any good arguement”. On the contrary, we are enjoined to always be ready to make a defense for the Hope that lies within.

Yes the Teaching of the Apostles preserved by the power of the HS in the Church is “all correct”. Why would we want to settle for less? Why is it to bad to want to belong to that which is “all correct”?

 

[Nicea325]

rev kevin:

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

I do not think so! Sorry,but you are adding to the text and reading into it more than it really says. Show us where St.Paul says in that specific verse that he baptized ONLY those who were able to repent because they could reason? Give me the ages of those in the household?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
So just because something has been done for 350 years before the Bible was put together don’t make it correct.

And it is also not correct to change it to something else fabricated up 1500 + years later.

A lot of things have been changed afer many years, like smoking, many years ago it could not harm you and now we know different.

The issue here is baptisms,not smoking. BTW: Since when in the past was smoking not harmful to one’s health? Smoking WAS always bad.

**
I the past it was said that it was not bad for you. Do you know what a example is?**

Do you? That is not what you said. You said: *many years ago it could not harm you and now we know different. *

Apparently you believe in the past it could not harm you.

What makes you right and me wrong?

** Back at ya**

It was already noted.

No one is saying you are wrong.Why would we? The RCC baptizes adults all the time who make the decision to be baptized and receive Christ…so what is the problem?

We have been told time and time again here that we are wrong.

Nope! Because millions of Catholics have done the same.

You go follow your Baptist church and we follow our church…got it?

Got it smart allic.

Good! Finally!

I will, but remember a Catholic started this thread “A question for some non-Catholics…”

Okay and? You want to prove that the Baptists are correct and they are not,so you can forget trying to convince us. When did the Baptist church pop into the world?

No one is trying to convince anyone. Have you read the rules? Have you read what this site is about?

Have you read the rules? Exactly! It is about infant baptisms and not that one MUST BE AN ADULT to receive baptisms.

See it can go eather way.

Then why so much fuss?

The question was asked of non-Catholics and when we answered it we were wrong and that is how the fuss started.

No,Baptists are not wrong for baptizing,the have a belief that baptism is soley for those who want to receive Jesus. We do not accept it and never will…get over it!
Look smart allic.

**You get over it. **

No need to get over it! I am not the one who follows some church founded centuries later.

Whether Catholics/Orthodoxs baptize infants should have no bearing on your faith,so why so much huffing and puffing?

Its a debate kinda sight. Its not only the non-Catholics huffing and puffing the Catholics are just a quilty.

U-huh and debating does not retort to the same line you use: Quit asking a question when a question has been given. You keep on dodging my question.

It is has been answered enough,don’t like it move on. Go to a Baptist only board.

**Look this is an non-Catholic site. You don’t tell us to go to a Baptist board when this is open for all. You chose to come to this site just like a person at the age of reason chooses to be baptized. **

Yep! A non-Catholic site under a CATHOLIC WEBSITE! I came to this WEBSITE because it’s Catholic and it has nothing to do with reasoning.

 

[guanophore]

Yes - they’re ALL 1st Century Catholics./QUOTE]
PeaceSerenity;6494450:

Actually, they were first century Christians

, I don’t think the apostles would identify themselves as Catholic, the term didn’t exist then. “Catholicism” only appeared as a “religion” after the schism in 1054.

Looks like you have some reading yourself to do of the early fathers, Peace. They DID call themselves Catholic. It was a term that has been used for the One, Holy, Apostolic Church since the writing of the book of Acts, where it first appears as a descriptor.

 

[Dokimas]

The of age thing makes no sense.

Baptism cleanses us of original sin.

It creates the potential for us to choose the gift of salvation.

Did you know the Jews practiced baptism?

Of course, John Baptized before Jesus’ ministry started.

If baptism cleanses for original sin, then why did Jesus have to die?

Ritual never did anything but point us to THE TRUTH. Actually some of the ritual deceives us into thinking we are okay. The TRUTH is it’s the Blood of Jesus cleanses us.

 

[Dokimas]

And the Jesus I know - the Jesus of the Bible says that you should not hinder the children from coming to him and* dying* with him in Baptism.

The Jesus you know would make a baby get baptized to be able to see the Kingdom of Heaven?

 

[Dokimas]

Guanophore in black; Doki in color.

So Doki? Yes?

What happened to that very powerful sounding Jesus in Revelation who spoke to the Churches? He’s still as powerful and He’s still speaking to all who will listen.

How is it that He lost His power or interest in keeping His One Body, the Church, on the right track? Jesus has NOT lost any power. His Body is doing as He knew would happen; it’s just you and I that have wrong understandings that would bring us to ask wrong questions.

How come He was able to intervene in the yr. 100 AD, but just a few years later could no longer do so? Maybe you think this because you misunderstand.?.?

It sounds like you are Mormon in your belief about the Great Apostasy. **Have I said anytihng about apostacy? ** Of course NOT. I don’t think the CC is apostate. However, you most like think I’m a heretic. If not you, there are some of your fellow catholics here the have said I am, which is no big deal. They (or you) are welcome to wrong opinions - and right opinions just as I am.

 

[Dokimas]

So Doki? What happened to that very powerful sounding Jesus in Revelation who spoke to the Churches? How is it that He lost His power or interest in keeping His One Body, the Church, on the right track? How come He was able to intervene in the yr. 100 AD, but just a few years later could no longer do so? It sounds like you are Mormon in your belief about the Great Apostasy.

There’s a HUGE difference between being mistaken and apostate!!!

 

[Dokimas]

Guanophore in blace; Doki in color.

Are you at all familiar with the context of Jn. 3? Yes. I have already comment on what I believe Jesus was speaking about when He refered to ‘water and spirit’.

The Apostles never separated the HS from the water. That is why Peter ORDERED WATER when he saw the HS had been given. The two are joined. IMO, Peter was no fool. He realized the Holy Spirit accepted them so who was he to deny baptism to those people. At much different ‘take’ than yours.

Do you think that Peter was departing from Jesus’ instruction when he told the people the promise was for them, and their children? NO! You did not finish that verse. It also speaks of people ‘far off’. IMO, that speaks to the understanding that baptism wasn’t just for the present repenters but for all those that repented after for all times, including their children.

 

[Dokimas]

Guanophore in black; Doki in color.

I agree with you on this point. Their writings are not considered inspired (inerrant), but they do have value. In this case, one of the values is how they show what was taught and practiced by the Apostles. **Let’s see if I understand what you are saying here. ** The CC speak 100% accurately with all its teachings but the writers of the letters that make up the NT were inerrant? If they weren’t inerrant and they were the early leaders of the church Jesus founded (btw, why didn’t Jesus keep them from error), how do you know the CC is inerrant in all its teaching?

No, it does not make a good Catholic to “ignore any good arguement”. On the contrary, we are enjoined to always be ready to make a defense for the Hope that lies within. I’m not sure you are being honest with YOURSELF. You defend the CC teachings against all the good ‘arguments’ that slightly disagree with the teaching of the CC which means you ignore the good argument. Of course in defending the ‘faith’ of the CC you’d have to say there is NO good argument the brings into question any of the teachings of the CC. Kind of circular reasoning which really validates my original statement you’re commenting on.

Yes the Teaching of the Apostles preserved by the power of the HS in the Church is “all correct”. Why would we want to settle for less? Why is it to bad to want to belong to that which is “all correct”? SEE. Your CC is all correct but the first ones used by Jesus, the writers of the letters of the NT, aren’t all correct. And now you see why some of us could not become part of the CC and yet we love you as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Doki: Jesus is all correct and the only one this side of Heaven. I hope I belong to Him. I’m glad He is able and willing to make us weak ones stand.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Nasty begets nasty
Yes I have you just refuse to see it.
So just because something has been done for 350 years before the Bible was put together don’t make it correct.
What makes you right and me wrong? See it can go eather way.
There you go with the sarcasm again, like I said nasty begets nasty.

So now your saying the holy spirit led the early church in error on baptizing infants?
What makes you more of an authority than the holy spirit on guiding Christ church in TOTAL truth rev? I will ask you again… What makes you right and the early church father wrong on infant baptism?
Please just a simple answer so we can all understand this…

Matthew

 

[Dokimas]

So now your saying the holy spirit led the early church in error on baptizing infants?
What makes you more of an authority than the holy spirit on guiding Christ church in TOTAL truth rev? I will ask you again… What makes you right and the early church father wrong on infant baptism?
Please just a simple answer so we can all understand this…

Matthew

I can assure you, with no doubt in my mind, that Kev was not saying nor does he believe the Holy Spirit led the early church in error.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

I can assure you, with no doubt in my mind, that Kev was not saying nor does he believe the Holy Spirit led the early church in error.

Then why is he convinced that the early church is wrong on infant baptism?

Matthew

 

[guanophore]

answer the question without asking questions.

Honestly, rev kev, it just seems that you are being recalcitrant.

In the same way that an infant cannot understand and give consent to any of the other elements of his well being, he cannot consent to being born again of water and spirit through baptism. When he is older, he can choose to throw away his inheritance.

The infant cannot take a non-HS water bath, wipe his dirty behind, choose the right foods to eat, get his own medical care, decide what kind of clothes he likes, etc. The parents are given the responsibility by God to care for the child. Why would they leave out the most important part of the care (being born again)?

 

[Dokimas]

Then why is he convinced that the early church is wrong on infant baptism?

Matthew

No one follows perfectly what the Holy Spirit intends for us. You must admit, or at least you should, that even the CC has things in its history that it wishes never happened, therefore, those things that should never have happened shows we don’t always follow exactly the Holy Spirit’s leading. The CC is not exempt, either.

 

[guanophore]

Are you able to answer a direct question with a direct answer?

Yes. And Yes, whenever adults are being addressed in the book of Acts, they are exhorted to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

However, it is not called the book of “Beliefs of the Apostles”. It is an historical rendering of the beginnings of the Church. No attempt was made to incorporate all that the Apostles believed an taught. That fullness was committed to the Apostolic Succession.

Answer the questions without asking questions. So far the questions has been being dodged. Answer the questions

I think you have made a good point here in refusing to answer the question put to you about original sin.

We all agree that we come into this world separated from God because of the Fall of Adam. We don’t agree that baptism is regenerative, because many Christians have departed from the Apostolic Teaching on this point.

But however you slice it, if one denies infant baptism, it results from a deficient understanding of the nature of original sin, and how it can be cleansed.

 

[guanophore]

Did you read my original post, you will then understand the purpose of baptism.

The problem with you new age christians is that you are 1600 years removed from Christ, by your rejection of the traditions of the Church.

It is true that modern American Evangelicals have been misled about baptism. Most of them have been taught that it’s purpose is not to convey any grace, but to “make a public witness to Christ”. It seems to be lost on them that this notion cannot be found anywhere in the NT or the history of the Church.

It is a modern innovation that reflects the Reformers departing from Apostolic Teaching in this matter. Once they decided that what the Apostles taught was not true (by rejecting Catholic faith) they had to invent some other reason for doing this activity, so “public witness” was invented.