Baptism of babies & infants

[freedomwriter]

I have already. It said all the household. It didn’t say except children under two years old. Bill Pick provided good evidence.

That is not evidence of infant baptism. The scriptures that Bill provided are not evidence of infant baptism. They were suggestions. I would just like to see 1 verse of this happening. Actually the Roman Catholic Church didn’t make infant baptism doctrine until the council of Trent.

 

[rinnie]

The most prominent objection I have seen is based on Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” From this, advocates of believer’s baptism understand Jesus to mean that belief in Christ must precede baptism for the sacrament to be valid.

And it really does not make sense huh. Let me explain why. Isn’t it the gift of the Holy Spirit that helps us to be good Christians. Would you not want that help and power from the HS right off the bat?

Wonder why when Peter first said this teaching he went from house to house and baptised everyone in the household if you had to be an adult. Never got a good answer from a protestant for that one yet.

But now lets go back to that scripture does it say if you are baptised you will be saved? Does it say if you believe you will be saved? Or does it say you must be Baptised and Believe and you are saved. So here is how I see it. If a child is baptised and then taught the faith and believes and followers the word and laws Jesus Christ set out for them they can and will be saved. Now with the help from the HS that enters a child from the start of birth and is taken to church, and taught to pray, would that not be a good foundation. I would think so.

I cannot see how it would be better to wait until they reach a certain age to grant them the power given by God to have the Grace of the HS given to them. If so God would have said until a person is a adult cannot they receive Grace from God. The Blessed Mother got it from conception. That there shows me the sooner the better. Since the bible does not say that a person must be a certain age, I will have my loved one given that grace at birth.

 

[rinnie]

That is not evidence of infant baptism. The scriptures that Bill provided are not evidence of infant baptism. They were suggestions. I would just like to see 1 verse of this happening. Actually the Roman Catholic Church didn’t make infant baptism doctrine until the council of Trent.

Does not matter when it became doctrine. The only reason it was made doctrine is the same way alot of Catholic Tradition was not made doctrine, because before it was never questioned. Only done.

 

[rinnie]

That is not evidence of infant baptism. The scriptures that Bill provided are not evidence of infant baptism. They were suggestions. I would just like to see 1 verse of this happening. Actually the Roman Catholic Church didn’t make infant baptism doctrine until the council of Trent.

Sure it is. Or are you going to say that there were not baby’s in a household in the early days of the Father. IF not all in the household would indeed include baby’s. All means all. Unless you can prove otherwise. THere was no exception mentioned in the bible.

 

[rinnie]

…besides, I have been so up and down in my faith over the years, if I was a Christian because of belief, I would have become Christian, than not Christian, then Christian again, more times than I could count on my fingers!

You keep studying and keep asking questions. And pray, pray for one thing GRACE. And with grace comes wisdom, and with that wisdom that comes, truth follow’s. And with truth you will find the right Church. You will find that Jesus left one Church with the sacraments and the keys to the kingdom. When you find that Church, and if you search long enough you will. And then I will say to you WELCOME HOME.

 

[rinnie]

It is unreasonable to believe that there were no babies in the households of the time. However, consider the following from Acts 2:38-39

Every one of you does not mean just adults further the promise involving baptism is for the children as well. It doesn’t say when your children are adults than the promise will be given to them.

Another good piece of scripture in favor of infant baptism. EVERY ONE OF YOU.

 

[Bill_Pick]

In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.
PLEASE READ JN3;5

 

[Lilyflower]

it is unreasonable to believe that there were no babies in the households of the time. However, consider the following from acts 2:38-39

every one of you does not mean just adults further the promise involving baptism is for the children as well. It doesn’t say when your children are adults than the promise will be given to them.

amen

 

[freedomwriter]

Sure it is. Or are you going to say that there were not baby’s in a household in the early days of the Father. IF not all in the household would indeed include baby’s. All means all. Unless you can prove otherwise. THere was no exception mentioned in the bible.

You would think if baptising an infant was biblical it would be in scripture and that Christ would have been baptized as an infant as well

 

[ncgolf]

You would think if baptising an infant was biblical it would be in scripture and that Christ would have been baptized as an infant as well

Colossians 2:11
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.

The membership rite of the Jewish people was, most ordinarily, an infant rite. Baptism and circumcision are parallel. Both make each a member … circumcision a Jewish member and in Baptism a member of the body of Christ. This does end the commitment for in each there is an expectation that the child will be brought up in the faith. These promises by the parents are specific in the text of the Catholic Baptism.

I would submit the ordinary means of the New Testament membership into the body of Christ is infant baptism … not adult baptism. Paul made this connection to circumcision … not me.

Paul would not have made this allusion if it were an adult only rite.

 

[placido]

You would think if baptising an infant was biblical it would be in scripture

Using your argument one can say the Bible is un-biblical because it is not mentioned in the Bible.

Christ would have been baptized as an infant as well

Baptized “as an infant” by whom? Was baptism taking place the time Jesus was born? But circumcision was taking place and Jesus was circumcised at the age of 8 days.
And you know what, baptism has replaced circumcision.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Baptized “as an infant” by whom? Was baptism taking place the time Jesus was born? But circumcision was taking place and Jesus was circumcised at the age of 8 days.
And you know what, baptism has replaced circumcision.

placido

Placido,
Are you saying God wasn’t responsible for when John the Baptist was born, and couldn’t have had him born earlier so that he would have been of age to baptize Christ when Christ was an infant if that was to be part of the new covenant gospel?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Placido,
Are you saying God wasn’t responsible for when John the Baptist was born, and couldn’t have had him born earlier so that he would have been of age to baptize Christ when Christ was an infant if that was to be part of the new covenant gospel?

Are you saying the infant Jesus should have taught the New Covenant at 8 days old?

 

[ParkerD]

Are you saying the infant Jesus should have taught the New Covenant at 8 days old?

Rebecca J,
The angels knew He was bringing the new covenant gospel to the earth, and that He would be crucified for the sins of humankind. God knew it also. I’m not sure if Catholics believe that Mary knew it, but if God wanted to establish a clear understanding about the age of baptism, He certainly could have brought about the conditions whereby that would have happened and it would have been written up in the Bible, thus giving the “perfect example” for all to follow.

 

[placido]

Placido,
Are you saying God wasn’t responsible for when John the Baptist was born, and couldn’t have had him born earlier so that he would have been of age to baptize Christ when Christ was an infant if that was to be part of the new covenant gospel?

God was responsible “for when John the Baptist was born”, but you people are reading too much into it. You emphasise the age of Jesus’ baptism while ignoring the age of His circumcision.
The bottom line is, if you follow the example of Jesus’ baptism, then you must follow it to the logical conclusion: that the only valid baptism is the one adminitered at the age of 30. And you must follow His example of circumcision at the age of 8 days as well.
Yes, God was responsible that Jesus was born under the law, but are you also under the law?
Apparently not, so, if something happened to Jesus it does not authomatically follow that it must also happen to you.

placido

 

[placido]

but if God wanted to establish a clear understanding about the age of baptism, He certainly could have brought about the conditions whereby that would have happened and it would have been written up in the Bible, thus giving the “perfect example” for all to follow.

Now, you are admiting God did not establish “a clear understanding of the age of baptism”. Meaning, the so-called age of reason is man-made, not written in the Bible.

placido

 

[rinnie]

You would think if baptising an infant was biblical it would be in scripture and that Christ would have been baptized as an infant as well

Do you think it could possibly be because Baptism was started by his cousin John and him and Jesus were like the same age? Was that not the reason God put John on this earth and made him a great prophet to Baptise People? I am not aware of Baptism of Water before John. In the O.T. baby’s had to be circumcised. But when Jesus came he replaced the old law with the new law. We are now circumcised in the heart with the Power of the Holy Spirit that Christ brought.

 

[Mickey]

it would have been written up in the Bible

It was…and it is crystal clear. The entire household means everyone…including infants. There is no way around it.

Acts 16

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

33 And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

 

[ParkerD]

Now, you are admiting God did not establish “a clear understanding of the age of baptism”. Meaning, the so-called age of reason is man-made, not written in the Bible.

placido

Hi, Placido,
I respect the things you have written, and the perspective you have. I think God has placed some decisions within the sphere of humankind’s being able to “figure it out for ourselves” rather than God telling us every single thing to think or do, even in matters of religion. But I think there are enough New Testament scriptures that tie baptism with conscious belief and a conscious choice, that an “age of reason” whatever that age be collectively decided on based on the collective experience of humankind, would be more appropriate to p(name removed by moderator)oint an age at which a person is making a conscious determination for themselves to be baptized, than to have their parents make the decision for them and make the commitment for them, however well-intentioned they are in making those decisions in behalf of their baby.

Have a good day.

 

[ParkerD]

It was…and it is crystal clear. The entire household means everyone…including infants. There is no way around it.

Acts 16

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

33 And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

Mickey,
Here is part of the context from Acts 16:
“…and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”

This reiterates what I had just written here in response to Placido.

If you were writing the things written there, and supposing there were infants in the household (which is a supposition), would you have written something such as:
“when she was baptized, she and her household except the infants, she besought us saying…”

I just don’t think infants are inferred in those passages of scripture, and I don’t think it was in the mind of the writer and the compliler to differentiate because they were always writing about belief and baptism as going together.