Baptism... And the True Church

[Eden]

Those who are saved are the bride of Christ, and we will not be united with the bridegroom until He calls us up… the bride is the same as “the church”. This is not meant a physical building, or a heirarchy, or a local congregation, but those who comprise the “body of Christ”.

Jesus founded a visible Church, plain and simple. This is entirely scriptural.

In Matt. 5:14, Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.

In Matt. 16:19; 18:18, Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing” are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.

In John 17:21, Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.

In Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24, the Church does not mean “invisible” unity, because Paul called it the body (not the soul) of Christ. Bodies are visible, and souls are invisible.

In 1 Peter 3:8, Peter charges us to have unity of spirit. This is impossible unless there is a central teaching authority given to us by God.

This visible Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have only one bride, and his bride is the Catholic Church.

 

[Odell]

Your understanding of the doctrine of infallibility in the Church is a common misinterpretation by, sorry - Protestants. Papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope does not make mistakes. It means he is incapable of teaching error regarding faith and morals.

No Eden John knows the doctrine and he knows what Infallibilty is. Ive told him over and over but he refuses to listen. You would think that a man of God would represent every ones religion they way they really believe it. I wuold not go around telling people that the budist worship the statue of buda. because I consider my self a man of God and would not spred lies. Even if I dont agree with there religion. If that was what I believed and a budist informed me I would no longer go around teaching it and I would no longer use it to throw in there face.

But we all know BA wont do that he will keep saying that the Pope sins He cant be infallible or whatever along those lines.

So BA being a man of God do not spread things we dont believe. You can disagree with what we belive but to disagree with something we dont teach after we have told you over and over is just pure anti Catholic hatred.

 

[jemfinch]

The gift of eternal life is not a gift that is to be imposed…

Just because you use prejudicial language like “imposed” doesn’t make it so. There is no reason a parent should not be allowed to give his child the gift of justification given in baptism, and less than he should not be allowed to give his child the gift of his first christmas ornament or his first stuffed animal. All of these gifts are “imposed” in the same way.

Infants cannot conscously recieve that gift,

Nor any other gift, but that doesn’t stop anyone from giving them.

neither do they have the ability to fulfil Colossians 2:6.

Not yet, but there’s no requirement (in that passage or elsewhere) that they be able to fulfill Colossians 2:6 immediately. You’re doing eisegesis, John.

The gift of eternal life is given to those who believe, not those who were imposed upon with it.

The gift of justification is given through baptism. It efficaciously heals the one being baptized, based either on his faith or his parents and the Church’s faith. For the promise is to you and your children…

BTW - You conveniently left out a portion of the discussion you gave the minutes to… my post #202 I quoted you then responded…

Which wasn’t even involved in that discussion. In post #243 I replied to your post #222, in which you had replied to my post #210, which was in reply to your post #200, in which you said, “I didn’t misinterpret scripture, I used an accurate version… the KJV… You said that verse stated that Levi was “in the loins of Abraham” but that is not how the verse reads… in any version I have seen.” #202, your post about Jacob and Esau, was never in this discussion, and was not in any way related to my basis for my statement that you fail to read both the Bible and these forums inaccurately.

Lying by omission is still lying Jeremy.

I’ve not lied at all; in fact, it’s you, who through either a lack of research or an intention to deceive have lied about history in order to make it look like I lied by omission. The facts are right there, John. #202 was never in the discussion I quoted, and has no relevance whatsoever to our theological discussion, since I’ve not read Augustine’s claims.

I admitted my mistake, but I gave a strong argument against your claim that Levi as scientifically implicated in Abrahams tithe.

I never made a scientific claim. My claim has always been biblical: the author of Hebrews say that Levi is implicated in Abraham’s tithe. You can do whatever you want with your science, I honestly don’t care: the Bible says it, and I believe it.

Why did you chose to attempt to discredit me,

You do a rather good job of that yourself, actually. I’m just pointing out the places where you lie, where you misquote, where you misread, where you misinterpret, and where you refuse to answer serious arguments.

rather than give a rebuttal to my statements?

False dichotomy. I’ve given rebuttal after rebuttal after rebuttal to your statements, and you refuse to reply to them. You ignore them, as if I never posted them. You quote portions of my posts, ignoring the “hard questions,” acting like they never existed.

Maybe because you can’t?

Keep on wishing, John.

Jeremy

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Your understanding of the doctrine of infallibility in the Church is a common misinterpretation by, sorry - Protestants. Papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope does not make mistakes. It means he is incapable of teaching error regarding faith and morals.

And, as I stated before, Peter actually taught error concerning faith and morals when he removed himself from the presence of the gentiles when the Jews saw him.

So, is the Didache also a perversion? It is recognized as the earliest-surviving Christian document and clearly states that pouring is an acceptable method of baptism.

So only a surviving document can be truthful? I’m sorry but that does not prove your point. Any document can have errors in it… even one that is the oldest surviving one.

Why don’t we concentrate on the King James Bible that you assert was given by the Catholic Church… since they (according to you) are incapable of propagating false teaching.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

In Matt. 16:19; 18:18, Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing” are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.

The power to bind and loose was given to the Apostles, but not the Apostles only. That power comes with the preaching of the gospel. If you fail to preach the gospel, you are in a sense binding… and if you do preach the gospel, you are “loosing”. These are NOT visible acts, you can not actually SEE what is happening to a person’s soul.

In John 17:21, Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God.

Where do you see that Jesus stated anything about the “visible” church? And that “visibility” was a sign to the world? What Jesus said was exactly what I have been conveying on this thread, that after He is resurrected, Christians would be united IN HIM, as He was IN the Father. This says nothing of a “Catholic” church institution, but an invisible unity with God through Christ… you wouldn’t say that I am actually “in the belly of Jesus” would you?

In Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24, the Church does not mean “invisible” unity, because Paul called it the body (not the soul) of Christ. Bodies are visible, and souls are invisible.

The “soul” is part of the physical body of a person… the most inward part of the mind (the will). The spirit is that part of a person that is the new life of a Christian… we are only “born again” of the spirit after Christ was resurrected and glorified spiritually. The Holy Spirit “IS” Jesus living in us, and we are part of Jesus because this new spiritual life is imparted to us…

In 1 Peter 3:8, Peter charges us to have unity of spirit. This is impossible unless there is a central teaching authority given to us by God.

Peter is exactly right… we are to have unity in Spirit… the Holy Spirit. Peter was exhorting us to be unified because of the Spirit that was imparted to us. If Peter was referring to teaching, he would have told us to have unity of “mind”. In this passage he is not.

This visible Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have only one bride, and his bride is the Catholic Church.

The bride of Christ is the one who has the Holy Spirit… not church affiliation. The kingdom of heaven is likened to ten virgins (Christ said)… these virgins were only allowed to the marriage supper if they had “oil” in thier lamps… the Holy Spirit is that oil.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

I never made a scientific claim. My claim has always been biblical: the author of Hebrews say that Levi is implicated in Abraham’s tithe. You can do whatever you want with your science, I honestly don’t care: the Bible says it, and I believe it.

Yes, the author of Hebrews did implicate Levi in Abraham’s tithe… symbolically, through fatherhood… but what about motherhood? If Levi was “physically” implicated in Abraham’s tithe that would also mean that David was too, and since David was, so was Mary, and if Mary was… the so was Jesus. But we know that can’t be so. It was only symbolic.

I’ve given rebuttal after rebuttal after rebuttal to your statements, and you refuse to reply to them. You ignore them, as if I never posted them. You quote portions of my posts, ignoring the “hard questions,” acting like they never existed.

Are you referring to the hard ones like this…

The gift of justification is given through baptism. It efficaciously heals the one being baptized, based either on his faith or his parents and the Church’s faith. For the promise is to you and your children…

Yes, that is hard. I cannot argue with you on fideism. But, I ignore these type of statements not because I do not have a rebuttal, but because fideistic statements defeat themselves… you can’t prove a point by just stating that you believe it.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Odell]

Eden,
The power to bind and loose was given to the Apostles, but not the Apostles only. That power comes with the preaching of the gospel. If you fail to preach the gospel, you are in a sense binding… and if you do preach the gospel, you are “loosing”. These are NOT visible acts, you can not actually SEE what is happening to a person’s soul.

fideistic statements defeat themselves… you can’t prove a point by just stating that you believe it.

Where do you see that Jesus stated anything about the “visible” church? And that “visibility” was a sign to the world?

first of all why would the apostles be the foundation of the Chruch. If the Church was just spritual than Jesus would be the foundation and only foundation. But the bible tells us that the apostles are the foundation. I would have to guess that they are the foundation of the physical Church. What do you think?

(Jn17:20-24)
The World has to SEE a unified Church therefore, it must be visible and canot be invisible.
(Mt 5:14) “You are the light of the world A city on a mountain CANOT be HIDDEN.” or you might say it canot be invisible. This verse is not describing an invisble Church.
(Mt 18:15-17)
“Tell the church” - which church? What Church do we tell it to if we are just invisible John?

The “soul” is part of the physical body of a person…

.

Just as the the spiritual aspect of the Chruch is just part of the Church but there is a physical part too that makes up the whole church.

Peter is exactly right… we are to have unity in Spirit… the Holy Spirit. Peter was exhorting us to be unified because of the Spirit that was imparted to us. If Peter was referring to teaching, he would have told us to have unity of “mind”. In this passage he is not.

So what is (Phil2:2) talking about? “Complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing.”

(Rom15:5) “May the God of endurance and ecouragement grant you to THINK in harmony with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus.”

And, as I stated before, Peter actually taught error concerning faith and morals when he removed himself from the presence of the gentiles when the Jews saw him.

I missed that could you elaberate. I hope you are not refering to when he renounced Jesus 3 times because that would be a sin and Peter was a sinner. which has nothing to do wiht infaliblity.

 

[Eden]

And, as I stated before, Peter actually taught error concerning faith and morals when he removed himself from the presence of the gentiles when the Jews saw him.

Can you please refer me to the post in which you discussed this?

It is unfortunate that Jesus did not consult with you before chosing which of His apostles upon whom to build His Church. It seems that you believe you could have made a better choice.

So only a surviving document can be truthful? I’m sorry but that does not prove your point. Any document can have errors in it… even one that is the oldest surviving one.

It is amazing that you believe the Holy Spirit is so ineffectual that He could not prevent the “true Church” (according to you, Baptist-like) from being swallowed whole by a larger, false church for 1600 years.

The fact is, the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and the Holy Spirit has protected her for 2,000 years.

Why don’t we concentrate on the King James Bible that you assert was given by the Catholic Church… since they (according to you) are incapable of propagating false teaching.

We’ve been here before. The Word of God is infallible. Your interpretation of it is not. “Concentrating” on your fallible interpretation of the Word of God is interesting, but it doesn’t add much of value to the discussion.

 

[jemfinch]

Yes, the author of Hebrews did implicate Levi in Abraham’s tithe… symbolically, through fatherhood… but what about motherhood? If Levi was “physically” implicated in Abraham’s tithe that would also mean that David was too, and since David was, so was Mary, and if Mary was… the so was Jesus.

Clearly, Mary and Jesus are exceptions the rule.

Yes, that is hard. I cannot argue with you on fideism.

I don’t know how to be much more clear on this point, John. My patience is wearing thin.

You clearly don’t know what Fideism is.

This is yet another one of those many points in which you’re utterly, completely wrong, but refuse to admit it. Fideism is the belief that faith cannot be logically substantiated. I wouldn’t be here arguing with you if I held to fideism. When you refuse to interact with points I raise, it’s not because they’re somehow fideistic (a fideist would not raise such points), it’s because you’re incapable or unwilling to interact with such arguments.

But, I ignore these type of statements not because I do not have a rebuttal, but because fideistic statements defeat themselves… you can’t prove a point by just stating that you believe it.

I’ve made arguments. You’ve refused to respond. I have nothing left to say until you reply to the arguments I’ve already made.

Jeremy

 

[Eden]

you can’t prove a point by just stating that you believe it.

Bingo! O.K., good. So, now all you need to do is to begin *proving *your points instead of just stating that they are true because you believe it. So far, this is the only kind of answer we are getting from you.

 

[NotWorthy]

Eden,

And, as I stated before, Peter actually taught error concerning faith and morals when he removed himself from the presence of the gentiles when the Jews saw him.

As stated before (if I may jump in…) Peter taught the truth. He just didn’t act on the truth, he was still teaching the truth to the church. Nobody claimed Peter or the popes are infallible people.

So only a surviving document can be truthful? I’m sorry but that does not prove your point. Any document can have errors in it… even one that is the oldest surviving one.

Nobody is claiming that the Didache is infallible. What it does prove, due to:
a) its widespread use throughout the church,
b) it’s consistency with what was is in Scriptures, and
c) it’s unity with what the Church has taught throughout her history

is that it’s very, very, very highly likely that the writers of the Didache are a “little bit” more familiar with the teachings of Christ than someone who has invented a new doctrine contrary to the Didache centuries after the fact. I’m not claiming you invented new doctrines, so much as you are echoing doctrines that were invented by men centuries after Christ’s death.

 

[CRW]

You made the assertion, now you defend it. That’s how argument works: those who make positive assertions are responsible to defend them.

And please reference this thread if you’re just curious about the Catholic response; I doubt you can rise above the level of debate in that thread.

But if you want some hints as to how you should frame your argument, I’m glad to help. You need to prove:

1. That age-restrictive baptism is the only baptism practiced in the Bible.
2. That age-restrictive baptism has been the practice of the Church since the beginning. Please offer significant historical and patristic evidence to support your thesis.

Jeremy

Circumcision was justification for the “Old Covenant” and normally boys circumcision was on the eight day. Baptism is the justification of the “New Covenant” and Catholic’s try to baptize their children as soon as possible.

 

[NotWorthy]

The power to bind and loose was given to the Apostles, but not the Apostles only. That power comes with the preaching of the gospel. If you fail to preach the gospel, you are in a sense binding… and if you do preach the gospel, you are “loosing”. These are NOT visible acts, you can not actually SEE what is happening to a person’s soul.

You do not seem to understand the power to bind and loose in Ancient Israel if you claim this. The Jewish leaders in Jesus’ time were able to “bind and loose” as well. They could make rules that were binding on the Jewish Faithful. Jesus passes this ability on to the Apostles and the Church they founded. If Jesus gave this to all, he would have used this in the Sermon on the Mount or such. Instead he gave this power that was exclusive to the Jewish leaders to the Apostles, exclusively.

Where do you see that Jesus stated anything about the “visible” church? And that “visibility” was a sign to the world? What Jesus said was exactly what I have been conveying on this thread, that after He is resurrected, Christians would be united IN HIM, as He was IN the Father. This says nothing of a “Catholic” church institution, but an invisible unity with God through Christ… you wouldn’t say that I am actually “in the belly of Jesus” would you?

I think others rebutted this quite well.

“You are a city on a hill…”
“Take it to the Church …”

The “soul” is part of the physical body of a person… the most inward part of the mind (the will). The spirit is that part of a person that is the new life of a Christian… we are only “born again” of the spirit after Christ was resurrected and glorified spiritually. The Holy Spirit “IS” Jesus living in us, and we are part of Jesus because this new spiritual life is imparted to us…

So when we die, our minds go to heaven? A physical part of us separates??? You lost me there…

The bride of Christ is the one who has the Holy Spirit… not church affiliation. The kingdom of heaven is likened to ten virgins (Christ said)… these virgins were only allowed to the marriage supper if they had “oil” in thier lamps… the Holy Spirit is that oil.

No one claims that someone goes to Heaven simply because they are Catholic. Faith in Christ and His teachings and obedience to Christ and His teachings are what get us to heaven.

 

[CRW]

You made the assertion, now you defend it. That’s how argument works: those who make positive assertions are responsible to defend them.

And please reference this thread if you’re just curious about the Catholic response; I doubt you can rise above the level of debate in that thread.

But if you want some hints as to how you should frame your argument, I’m glad to help. You need to prove:

1. That age-restrictive baptism is the only baptism practiced in the Bible.
2. That age-restrictive baptism has been the practice of the Church since the beginning. Please offer significant historical and patristic evidence to support your thesis.

Jeremy

Infant Baptism in the Early Church by Dennis Kastens
issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm
Patial Quote"

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by Christ’s original 12 Apostles (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18: 8) and that practice has continued with each generation.

The Early Church

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, “Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.”

Church Councils and Apologists

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.” Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9: “For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit.”

Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. Cyprian’s reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

first of all why would the apostles be the foundation of the Chruch. If the Church was just spritual than Jesus would be the foundation and only foundation. But the bible tells us that the apostles are the foundation. I would have to guess that they are the foundation of the physical Church. What do you think?

The word “ekklesia” which is translated “church” in the New Testament means “an assembly” or a “called out assembly”. There are two different types of churches mentioned in the New Testament… the visible “churches”, and the “church” that Jesus founded. The visible churches are the physical assemblies of Christians. The invisible “church” is the all-inclusive assembly of all Christians “in Christ”.
To call the church that Jesus founded the Catholic or (physical) church is to say that the Catholic church has effectually replaced the work of the Holy Spirit to be the agent that ‘binds’ Christ’s church together.

I missed that could you elaberate. I hope you are not refering to when he renounced Jesus 3 times because that would be a sin and Peter was a sinner. which has nothing to do wiht infaliblity.

I was speaking of Galatians 2:11-21 where Paul rebuked him for his actions which taught heresy.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden

We’ve been here before. The Word of God is infallible. Your interpretation of it is not. “Concentrating” on your fallible interpretation of the Word of God is interesting, but it doesn’t add much of value to the discussion.

Isn’t that side-stepping my question?

You said the Catholic Church gave us the King James Bible, all I said is; why don’t we use it to debate. Do you not care what that infallible Word of God says?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

Fideism is the belief that faith cannot be logically substantiated. I wouldn’t be here arguing with you if I held to fideism. When you refuse to interact with points I raise, it’s not because they’re somehow fideistic (a fideist would not raise such points), it’s because you’re incapable or unwilling to interact with such arguments.

The statement I quoted from you was exactly that… a fideistic statement… the only substantiation you offered for that statement is simply that you believed it.

Just like your first statement on the same post that your defense of jeremy’s fideism statement came from…

Clearly, Mary and Jesus are exceptions the rule.

Why is Mary and Jesus the exceptions to this rule? If you offer no substantiation except your belief in the statement… THAT IS FIDEISM.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Notworty,

Nobody is claiming that the Didache is infallible. What it does prove, due to:
a) its widespread use throughout the church,
b) it’s consistency with what was is in Scriptures, and
c) it’s unity with what the Church has taught throughout her history

is that it’s very, very, very highly likely that the writers of the Didache are a “little bit” more familiar with the teachings of Christ than someone who has invented a new doctrine contrary to the Didache centuries after the fact.

My dismissal of documents like the Didache, or portions of it is not based on historical inaccuracy, but biblical corraboration.

Whatever historical document that was written has been an interpretation of biblical truths… it is possible, even probable that many of them are innacurate interpretations…

The earlies possible perspective on truth we have is the writings of the Apostles (The New Testament). Any contrary document does not negate the truth they taught, so it must be a faulty interpretation.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

notworthy,

No one claims that someone goes to Heaven simply because they are Catholic. Faith in Christ and His teachings and obedience to Christ and His teachings are what get us to heaven.

Well, you were right after “Faith in Christ”.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

So when we die, our minds go to heaven? A physical part of us separates??? You lost me there…

I’m not ready to claim “soul sleep”, but there is no denying that the soul is the “personality, emotions, and will of a person”. That is a “physical” aspect of a person because it pertains to the mind.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

CRW,

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by Christ’s original 12 Apostles (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18: 8) and that practice has continued with each generation.

Let’s look at the quotes you cited…

1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Praise God, the whole family was saved! That verse does not prove anything for infant baptism. I assure you, if Paul baptized the whole household of Stephanas, there were no infants implicated.

Act 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

Which words would be toward the effectually salvation of Peter, and subsequently his whole household (1 Corinthians 7:16). As is qualified by verse 16.

Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.

Apparently her whole family was saved. In fact, verse 40 refers to the household of Lydia as “brethren”, and Paul and Silas “comforted” them in Lydia’s house.

Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Yes, the jailer was baptized with his house… but in verse 30 he asked what shall I do to be saved. in verse 32 the gospel was shared with him… AND HIS HOUSE.

Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

In verse 34 we see evidence that he and his whole house had believed the gospel that was preached to them…

Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

I see no evidence for Infant Baptism in any of the quotes you cited… Dennis Kastens misinterpreted scripture I think.

Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, “Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Justin Martyr was absolutely right… Baptism IS the circumcision of the New Testament…

Would you like to discuss this relationship between circumcision and baptism further?

John
www.gideonsword.net