Your husband is right. The Bible aways say repent and be baptized not be baptized and then repent, Repent in the Bible means “turn to God” Phillip tells the eunuch that if he believes he may be baptized.My husband feels that the Catholic Church is backwards in it’s teaching on Baptism. It all stems from the practice of infant baptism and that the baby is not ‘accepting’ Christ before he/she is baptised. How do I defend the Catholic position of infant baptism from Scripture to my husband?
WRONG.Your husband is right. The Bible aways say repent and be baptized not be baptized and then repent, Repent in the Bible means “turn to God” Phillip tells the eunuch that if he believes he may be baptized.
Actually, I believe it was only one household, and that’s a pretty big assumption that you’re making there that there were infants. It’s just as valid to assume all the kids were teens, and so could make the decision on their own.The bible also mentions entire households being baptised, not entire households minus the children. Did not Christ command that we in no way bar the children from coming to him?
Do you allow your children to choose what they eat? Do you allow them to choose whether or not to go to school, or where to go to school? Children need the guidence of their parents, spiritually moreso than others! Baptism is the first step in the walk with God, and parents should not inhibit that in any way.
Refusing to baptize a child because he might decide not to accept Christ in the future is like getting a pre-nuptual agreement because a marriage might fail. You’re already setting yourself up for failure and rejection, and it is very likely this will become a self-fullfilling prophecy.
I’m not assuming their were infants, however their would likely have been children. Interestingly you didn’t address the second part of the post.Actually, I believe it was only one household, and that’s a pretty big assumption that you’re making there that there were infants. It’s just as valid to assume all the kids were teens, and so could make the decision on their own.
Of course, the inconvenient truth for your position is that the covenenant with God to circumcize (males only) was explicitly taught, whereas the same cannot be said for infant baptism. If baptism replaces something, then what does it replace for females?WRONG.
Baptism replaces circumcision, which was decided by the PARENTS of the child, based on THEIR covenant with God.
Why is that interesting? You think you’re clever or something? Without a single example of infant baptism in the New Testament, your entire argument falls apart. The second part of your post is just one big assertion, with no scriptural basis, which follows from the poor reasoning in the first part of your post.I’m not assuming their were infants, however their would likely have been children. Interestingly you didn’t address the second part of the post.
If I have to explain Jewish customs to you - you came to this fight with no ammunition.Of course, the inconvenient truth for your position is that the covenenant with God to circumcize (males only) was explicitly taught, whereas the same cannot be said for infant baptism. If baptism replaces something, then what does it replace for females?
Why does it fall apart without an explicit, rather than implicit, example? The bible itself says that not everything that was done is in the bible. Seems to me that the bible destroys any argument basing itself entirely on it, on its own.Why is that interesting? You think you’re clever or something? Without a single example of infant baptism in the New Testament, your entire argument falls apart. The second part of your post is just one big assertion, with no scriptural basis, which follows from the poor reasoning in the first part of your post.
According to Irenaeus, as I love to point out, everything that was preached orally was handed down in writing in the Scriptures. See Against Heresies 3.1.1.The parents have a responsibility to baptize their (gift from God ) child and allow the Holy Spirit into this child’s life. This also removes original sin and when the child is of age and after ( of course) a solid foundation in the faith the child can make a reasonably educated choice. As noted in previous messages many families were baptized together. Some that follow Solo Scriptora and do not believe in Tradition are missing a lot. Remember that tradition and oral transmission came before the New Testament was written down. Many things that were accepted by the followers of THE WAY were then put into writing and accepted as the written word of God. Although God can work through anyone, baptized or not, I believe that it is everyone’s best interest to be baptized and allow the Holy Spirit to work in that person.
You do know that Irenaeus predates the bible as a collective work? Clearly he wasn’t using “scripture” as synonymous with “bible” like modern protestants do.According to Irenaeus, as I love to point out, everything that was preached orally was handed down in writing in the Scriptures. See Against Heresies 3.1.1.
By your response, I’m guessing that you have no answer to my question.**If I have to explain **Jewish customs to you - you came to this fight with no ammunition.
Did you not even bother to read it?You do know that Irenaeus predates the bible as a collective work? Clearly he wasn’t using “scripture” as synonymous with “bible” like modern protestants do.
Edit: I just read the verse you referenced, it says nothing of the sort.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm
Gospel means “Good news” while it later refers to the written gospels, it was not refering to them when it said it in that case. Secondly it does not say that everything Jesus said and did is written in scripture, it says that the things which they were proclaiming are in scripture, and once again, scripture is not synonymous with bible.Did you not even bother to read it?
We have learned from none others** the plan of our salvation**, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.
WRONG.Did you not even bother to read it?
We have learned from none others** the plan of our salvation**, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.
I believe the issue of infant Baptism hinges in large measure what your view of Baptism is.My husband feels that the Catholic Church is backwards in it’s teaching on Baptism. It all stems from the practice of infant baptism and that the baby is not ‘accepting’ Christ before he/she is baptised. How do I defend the Catholic position of infant baptism from Scripture to my husband?
It’s not implicit. You’re just assuming based on your preconceived notion.Why does it fall apart without an explicit, rather than implicit, example? The bible itself says that not everything that was done is in the bible. Seems to me that the bible destroys any argument basing itself entirely on it, on its own.
Hah! That’s not a syllogism. Thanks for the laugh. You might want to look up syllogism to see how to construct one, because what you provided was not a syllogism.Do I think I was being cleaver? No, because I’m not the originator of that argument, however I have not ever heard a reasonable answer to it, and no it isn’t just an assertion, it is a sylogism. If you are going to force kids to do certain important things, why would you not make them do the most important thing?
I didn’t call you a single name in that entire response. Please point it out. Telling someone they have poor reasoning is not name calling.I am rather shocked that after three posts your argument has turned to namecalling, especially since your original argument was simply “It doesn’t say it.” It doesn’t say only Adults can be baptised either. In fact the only reason it says “repent and be baptised” is because it is aimed at adults who have much to repent for, Infants have nothing to repent for, why should they be denied the Holy Mystery?
You obviously don’t understand logic if you think you can conclude that from what I’ve said.As a final thought, the bible doesn’t anywhere instruct believers that they should breath. By your logic a true Christian must not breath.
Ok, now I’m convinced you didn’t read it. How embarrassing. In the SAME EXACT verse, Irenaeus refers to the written gospelsGospel means “Good news” while it later refers to the written gospels, it was not refering to them when it said it in that case. Secondly it does not say that everything Jesus said and did is written in scripture, it says that the things which they were proclaiming are in scripture, and once again, scripture is not synonymous with bible.