Accept Christ then be Baptized

[elvisman]

By your response, I’m guessing that you have no answer to my question.

Oh, Kempston – lost as always. Stop dancing around the issue.

---

Jesus explicitly told his Apostles in Matt. 9:14:
***“Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” *********

---

Jesus also said in Matt. 18:3, Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17:
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."

Oh – I know you like quoting the Fathers out of context when it suits your argument, so I thought I’d include what they taught as well:

---

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants,* sanctifying infant*s; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 A.D. 189]).**

---

Hippolytus
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. 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 (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 A.D.215]).

---

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants**. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is 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]).**

 

[Nine_Two]

It’s not implicit. You’re just assuming based on your preconceived notion.

As are you. Pot calling the kettle black them?

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.

A syllogism is a line of logic. If this happens, then this follows, if I make sure my children are of healthy mind and body, I must make sure they are of healthy spirit.

The reason I don’t force my kids to be baptized is the same reason I don’t force my neighbor to get baptized. It would be meaningless without personal faith.

Clearly you think much less of the Holy Sacrament than I.

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 didn’t say you called me a name, I said you were namecalling, that is you insulted the argument itself instead of answering it. Incidently you do that at the end of this post I’m quoting.

Philip told the Eunuch if he believed he could be baptized. In Acts it says that all those who “accepted the message” were baptized. No mention of infants. There’s the formula right there. If you believe. If you accept the message. Then you can be baptized. It’s not complicated.

Yes, as an adult that’s true. That does not in any way preclude infant baptism.

You obviously don’t understand logic if you think you can conclude that from what I’ve said.

More name calling, this time a direct insult. If someone thinks you’re wrong, they’re an idiot.

Here’s something else I found, since you clearly hold St. Ireneaus in high esteem, I thought I’d quote him.

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

And of course there is also St. Hippolytus:

“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” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

St. Cyprean:

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

St. Gregory of Nazianz

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

It was clearly the teaching of the church from very early on.

 

[JonNC]

Oh, Kempston – lost as always. Stop dancing around the issue.

---

Jesus explicitly told his Apostles in Matt. 9:14:****
***“Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” *********

---

Jesus also said in Matt. 18:3, Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17:
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."

Oh – I know you like quoting the Fathers out of context when it suits your argument, so I thought I’d include what they taught as well:

---

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men**. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants,* sanctifying infant*s; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 A.D. 189]).

---

Hippolytus
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. 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 (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 A.D.215]).

---

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants**. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is 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]).

Jon

 

[Nine_Two]

Ok, now I’m convinced you didn’t read it. How embarrassing. In the SAME EXACT verse, Irenaeus refers to the written gospels

1. 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. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Please, if you’re not even going to read the material you’re seriously wasting my time.

You’ll note that you quoted two completely different parts. I said he mentions the written gospels, however the first part you quoted does not reference the gospels as they were written. You’ll notice the two sentences are nowhere near each other, let alone related. Basic grammatical syntax here.

 

[Nine_Two]

Oh, Kempston – lost as always. Stop dancing around the issue.

---

Jesus explicitly told his Apostles in Matt. 9:14:****
***“Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” *********

---

Jesus also said in Matt. 18:3, Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17:
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."

Oh – I know you like quoting the Fathers out of context when it suits your argument, so I thought I’d include what they taught as well:

---

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men**. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants,* sanctifying infant*s; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 A.D. 189]).

---

Hippolytus
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. 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 (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 A.D.215]).

---

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants**. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is 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]).

We were clearly on the same page.

 

[kimmielittle]

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.

 

[kimmielittle]

I believe the issue of infant Baptism hinges in large measure what your view of Baptism is.
As Lutherans, we believe that "it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace." (Augsburg Confession).
Now, if I believe it is necessary to salvation, and Christ said, “suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not”, then based on faith, I believe He wants to bestow His grace and salvation on my infant child, and encourages me to bring my infant child to Him for Baptism.

Jon

 

[elvisman]

Jon

I love it when we agree.

 

[elvisman]

We were clearly on the same page.

You got it!

 

[kimmielittle]

Oh, Kempston – lost as always. Stop dancing around the issue.

Jesus explicitly told his Apostles in Matt. 9:14:
***“Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” ***

Jesus also said in Matt. 18:3, Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17:
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."

Oh – I know you like quoting the Fathers out of context when it suits your argument, so I thought I’d include what they taught as well:

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men**. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants,* sanctifying infant*s; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. 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 (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 A.D.215]).

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants**. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is 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]).

Absolutely:thumbsup:

 

[JonNC]

I love it when we agree.

Me too.:extrahappy:

Jon

 

[Luke65]

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.

Right, the apostles preached that we must believe and repent before we can baptized. Question: Who are the apostles preaching to? Infants? No, they are preaching to adults and children of the age of reason - sinners. Of course sinners must believe and repent before they can be baptized. But infants have nothing to repent for. Salvation is a free gift of God given to us in Baptism. There is nothing we can do to merit this gift - not faith, not obedience. Do you believe this? Then why can’t babies receive this free gift from God? Where does the Bible say they can’t? It doesn’t, in fact it tells us just the opposite. Circumcision entered Jews into covenant with God, and the parents made that decision for their newborn sons. This foreshadowed the fact that parents can enter their children into the New Covenant with God through Baptism (Col. 2:11-12), and they become members of God’s Household, His Church, His Kingdom…

"People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” (Luke 18:15-17)

“If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:11-12)

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized." (Acts 16:31-33)

"Peter replied, “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 and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39 NIV)

Scripture Catholic: Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.P.S. agzag, follow the Scripture Catholic link for all the relevant verses and quotes from the early Church on Baptism (and other Church teachings: homepage). God bless.

 

[agiosotheos]

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?

Ask him why he has such a rationalist conception of the nature of faith.

 

[Reuben_J]

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?

Thanks God for the New Covenant. Now we have both for the males and females.

 

[ckempston]

Right, the apostles preached that we must believe and repent before we can baptized. Question: Who are the apostles preaching to? Infants? No, they are preaching to adults and children of the age of reason - sinners. Of course sinners must believe and repent before they can be baptized. But infants have nothing to repent for. Salvation is a free gift of God given to us in Baptism. There is nothing we can do to merit this gift - not faith, not obedience. Do you believe this? Then why can’t babies receive this free gift from God? Where does the Bible say they can’t? It doesn’t, in fact it tells us just the opposite. Circumcision entered Jews into covenant with God, and the parents made that decision for their newborn sons. This foreshadowed the fact that parents can enter their children into the New Covenant with God through Baptism (Col. 2:11-12), and they become members of God’s Household, His Church, His Kingdom…

"People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” (Luke 18:15-17)

“If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:11-12)

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized." (Acts 16:31-33)

"Peter replied, “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 and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39 NIV)

Scripture Catholic: Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

That is bogus. There are simply not words to describe how bogus that Greek translation is. One only has to look at verbs with the same conjugation in context to see how absurd this translation of baptistheto is. Simply look up other verbs that are aorist, 2nd person plural, in the passive voice. They’re quite bountiful in the New Testament, and applying this type of nonsensical translation to other passages demolishes this attempt to twist Acts 2:38.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.P.S. agzag, follow the Scripture Catholic link for all the relevant verses and quotes from the early Church on Baptism (and other Church teachings: homepage). God bless.

Those far off refers to people who have not yet heard the Gospel. Clearly, this is what the passage means because after the comma, it explains what it means by this when it says “all whom the Lord our God will call”. In other words, people who God has not yet called, or have not yet responded to his call (i.e. not these people’s infants) will receive the same promise if they repent and are baptized.

The incorrectness of your interpretation is further demonstrated with verse 41:

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Who was baptized? Those that gladly received his word, **which infants cannot do. **Only when the scriptures are taken completely out of context and fake Greek “literal translations” are taken from who knows where, can the Catholic position be made to look valid. It’s quite simple. Read the Scriptures and believe them. If you have to perform all manner of mental gymnastics and unnatural interpretations to make your doctrine fit a passage, your doctrine is likely wrong.

 

[DOShea]

I’m pretty confident the early Church Fathers who got their faith and training from the Apostles themselves or from the very next generation of Christians didn’t do any Greek verb gymnastics when they tell us the Tradition from the Apostles was to baptize infants.

You can lock yourself into trying to determine what “the bible” means when it doesn’t say something even with the best of Greek word analysis, or you can pay attention to the words of people who were actually pouring water over the heads of infants like the Apostles taught them to as they led entire localities of believers. Seems like a no-brainer to me as to which one to accept.

 

[elvisman]

I’m pretty confident the early Church Fathers who got their faith and training from the Apostles themselves or from the very next generation of Christians didn’t do any Greek verb gymnastics when they tell us the Tradition from the Apostles was to baptize infants.

You can lock yourself into trying to determine what “the bible” means when it doesn’t say something even with the best of Greek word analysis, or you can pay attention to the words of people who were actually pouring water over the heads of infants like the Apostles taught them to as they led entire localities of believers. Seems like a no-brainer to me as to which one to accept.

Very well-put, my friend.

Seems like a lot of spiritual pride gets in the way of those constantly attempting to disprove the Church.

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m pretty confident the early Church Fathers who got their faith and training from the Apostles themselves or from the very next generation of Christians didn’t do any Greek verb gymnastics when they tell us the Tradition from the Apostles was to baptize infants.

You can lock yourself into trying to determine what “the bible” means when it doesn’t say something even with the best of Greek word analysis, or you can pay attention to the words of people who were actually pouring water over the heads of infants like the Apostles taught them to as they led entire localities of believers. Seems like a no-brainer to me as to which one to accept.

Nothing can beat action; not words nor eloquence. They did it, period.

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m pretty confident the early Church Fathers who got their faith and training from the Apostles themselves or from the very next generation of Christians didn’t do any Greek verb gymnastics when they tell us the Tradition from the Apostles was to baptize infants.

You can lock yourself into trying to determine what “the bible” means when it doesn’t say something even with the best of Greek word analysis, or you can pay attention to the words of people who were actually pouring water over the heads of infants like the Apostles taught them to as they led entire localities of believers. Seems like a no-brainer to me as to which one to accept.

Brilliant !!

 

[ckempston]

I’m pretty confident the early Church Fathers who got their faith and training from the Apostles themselves or from the very next generation of Christians didn’t do any Greek verb gymnastics when they tell us the Tradition from the Apostles was to baptize infants.

They didn’t tell them any such thing.

You can lock yourself into trying to determine what “the bible” means when it doesn’t say something even with the best of Greek word analysis, or you can pay attention to the words of people who were actually pouring water over the heads of infants like the Apostles taught them to as they led entire localities of believers. Seems like a no-brainer to me as to which one to accept.

They didn’t do this.