Baptism of babies & infants

  • Thread starter Thread starter placido
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not so much about what happens to unbaptized infants, but what happens to their parents because of this negligence.
Do you rember what happened to the Israelites after they failed to circumcise their babies?

placido
Thank you for reply placido. Quoting from the New American Catholic Bible, Jesus states in Mat.19:14, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” What does this really mean?
ED O.
 
Rev Kenin, please don’t cry foul. When you came here you knew you were coming to a Catholic forum. You knew beforehand Catholics disagreed with you.

Not crying foul. I believe this is a NON-CATHOLIC RELIGIONS FORUM am I not right. Isn’t that what it says, or am I reading it wrong?

For us it is not about winning. It about sharing the truth.
Don’t tell me, tell your people that, they are the ones who are trying to win not me. I’m in no fight here just want solid answers.
Yes the word is sharing. Sharing your truth and letting others share their without judging them or telling them they are wrong Or is this a one way sharing experience. Will share ours with you but don’t share your with us because we don’t want to here it and we will call you ignorant or a fool.
Here is the definition of Share {oh by the way I have been but down for using the dictionary also} but what the h—. A part or portion given to or by one person, one of equal parts, as the capital stock in a corporation. To divide or distrubute portions. See you share and I share one person to another. If not sure ask your children what the word share means they should be able to tell you.

Like I said, you knew Catholics don’t agree with you, but you hoped to find a bunch of now-nothings who would run for cover immediately after your arrival on this forum.
WHAT? First of all I never said they had to agree with me. What is a now-nothings?
Your people are attacking me for asking questions and wanting proof of your claims besides “the truth” or “the church” solid proof. Is that such a problem. If they run for cover then maybe they are not sure of their faith or how strong it is because I thought you Catholics are relentless and won’t back down form defending your faith. But instead one person makes them run. How funny.

That has always been the danger of sectarianism. People are made to feel confident in their new-found faith, thinking they can easily demolish any Catholic claim – until they eventually encounter Catholics who really know their faith and are determined to defend it. With the lie exposed, those who were once confident in themselves, are in danger of losing faith altogether.
I’m not demolishing any claim. All I asked for was solid proof. How is that demolishing. I think your people need to take a look at who’s demolishing who’s claims. Our’s is the only one and true religion, your religion is not, your not ordained because only a priest can be.
Now don’t feed me that ---- your people are the ones who are demolishing others. I beleive I have said that I don’t care what you believe or at what age you baptize but, no that wasn’t good enough lets keep on harping on him about it, so then I go on the defensive {who wouldn’t your people have many times} and now I get this. They have told me that I’m being ignorant because I don’t accept their answer. I have been called a fool because I still question their answer. So I ask you who is doing it to who? Who is demolishing who religion? Not me.

placido
 
I have asked to be taken off the Catholic Answers form. Now ya’ll can not be afraid of one person and you don’t have to run away like cowards when I sign in. I regret ever getting on this site. I have met a bunch of the most rudes people here. I 'm glad I’m no longer a Catholic because I can’t be like you people are toward other. Have a good life and may God Bless you all. Now ya’ll can cheer and be happy and talk about me when I’m gone.
 
Now I went from showing ignorance to being a fool. Are we getting upset. At least I haven’t resorted to name calling or belittling. Such a good Catholic is that also what your belief is in your faith name calling and belittling? Why does the timeline keep changing from 2000 years to 1400 years. Just wondering?
I have as a matter of fact I am doing a sermon on Matthew 17 the transfiguration and the demon possessed boy. See the disciples have been given the authority to do the healing , but they had not yet learned how to appropriate the power of God. Jesus’ frustration is with the unbelieving and unresponsive generation. I believe and have responded???

Matthew 16: 18-19 The rock on which Jesus would build his church has been identified as
1-Jesus himself
2-Peter
3-the confession of faith that Peter gave and that all susequent true believers would give. It seems most likly that the rock refers to Peter as the leader of the church. Just as Peter has revieled the true identity of Christ, so Jesus revealed Peter’s inenity and roll.
All believers are joined into this church by faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.

John 16:13 The truth into which the Holy Spirit guides us is the truth about Christ. The spirit also helps us through patient practice to descern fight fro wrong.

1 Timothy 3:15 The church is the living God. yes the Living God and your point?

Still no Catholic church mentioned here.

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t this sight about "BAPTISM OF BABIES & INFANTS, not about "WHO STARTED THE CHURCH "or “WHAT THE TRUE CHURCH IS” I’m just saying
rev NO church haS a name the first Church is the church of all baptsm believe in Christ. THE FIRST CHURCH WAS AND IS THE CATHLOIC CHURCH AND IT DID NOT GET have NAME Cathloic until about 102ad until that time it was called universal and B4 that it was call the Way We had no baptism church, no Luther church no any christian church and Out Lord said I will build My Church on this rock this is the name that our lord change from peter to rock and that is how we got the Cathloic Church no church can trace back to 33AD but the Cathloic Church all the other 36000 come in 1400 now do you think you can understand this,dont have my glasses on so sorry for my grammar and spelling. I have some very good boos I will be happy to send you to help you understand Christianilty.

rev you are right about the tread how does all your tread get off corse The OLTEEN ,this one and what others
 
Thank you for your resonse Pipper. Would you please be so kind and direct me to the post that you mention in your example about St. John’s baptism differs from Christian batism. Honestly I did not intentionally ignore it. Also would you better explain what you are talking about in your PS. Thanks
Ed the post where I spoke about the difference between St John the Baptiser’s Jewish mikveh, and Christian baptism is post #315, located on page 21 of this thread.

Now about the PS, it’s not in front of me currently, but I think I spoke in response to your question (might not be perfect quote becuase I can’t see it at the moment) but I think you asked what this board is for if not for you to explain your personal take on the scriptures? I explained this board (forum) is for inquirers to ask questions of Catholics, and for Catholics to answer. that is why this site is called Catholic answers. Once again this board is not for you to proselyte for your faith of (ETC).

You still refuse to answer just what (etc) is, you need to do that so the people reading will have a better idea of what your frame of reference is.

If you answer that question of what denomination is we will get a better handle on just what it is you are trying to get across.
 
Ed the post where I spoke about the difference between St John the Baptiser’s Jewish mikveh, and Christian baptism is post #315, located on page 21 of this thread.

Now about the PS, it’s not in front of me currently, but I think I spoke in response to your question (might not be perfect quote becuase I can’t see it at the moment) but I think you asked what this board is for if not for you to explain your personal take on the scriptures? I explained this board (forum) is for inquirers to ask questions of Catholics, and for Catholics to answer. that is why this site is called Catholic answers. Once again this board is not for you to proselyte for your faith of (ETC).

You still refuse to answer just what (etc) is, you need to do that so the people reading will have a better idea of what your frame of reference is.

If you answer that question of what denomination is we will get a better handle on just what it is you are trying to get across.
OK Ed, I went back and read my PS. It was in response to your saying “water baptism” the word “water” is not needed for there is only one baptism and it uses water. Just say baptism and we will understand.
 
Placido,
Do you honestly think that God does His work of faith in the hearts of humankind by threatening parents?
Not threatening parents but giving them a baby as a gift and expecting them to do His will. Failure to do God’s will is a sin.
The Mosaic law was replaced, not re-established in a new way. The new law was not one of threats of punishment, but of willing hearts doing the will of God because they want to.
And failing to do God’s will because you don’t want to, is tantamount to opting for God’s punishment.

placido
 
Thank you for reply placido. Quoting from the New American Catholic Bible, Jesus states in Mat.19:14, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” What does this really mean?
ED O.
Let me rephrase it this way, “Let the children come to school, and do not prevent them; for the school belongs to them.”

Now, if you don’t allow your child to go to school dirty, why do you want your child to go to Jesus dirty? Why not baptize him/her and wash away the original sin before allowing her/him to go to Jesus (I am assuming you believe baptism is not part of letting the child go to Jesus).

placido
 
I have asked to be taken off the Catholic Answers form. Now ya’ll can not be afraid of one person and you don’t have to run away like cowards when I sign in. I regret ever getting on this site. I have met a bunch of the most rudes people here. I 'm glad I’m no longer a Catholic because I can’t be like you people are toward other. Have a good life and may God Bless you all. Now ya’ll can cheer and be happy and talk about me when I’m gone.
You have posted 125 times here. A catholic won’t be allowed to stay that long in a non-catholic forum, especially if he/she refers to the hosts as rude.

placido
 
Not threatening parents but giving them a baby as a gift and expecting them to do His will. Failure to do God’s will is a sin.

And failing to do God’s will because you don’t want to, is tantamount to opting for God’s punishment.

placido
Placido,
It is certainly God’s will that parents teach their children, both under the Mosaic law and under the new law and new covenant. Failure to do that would be sin. But the converted Pharisees were the ones who insisted that circumcision was still needed, even for Gentiles, and they of course would have insisted that if baptism replaced circumcision, it needed to be done at the age of circumcision. They won the dispute, and here you are. But baptizing infants is doing the Pharisees’ will and has nothing to do with God’s will.

Being baptized when one believes and has faith is another matter entirely, and is God’s will.👍
 
Placido, Being baptized when one believes and has faith is another matter entirely, and is God’s will.👍
Quote= onenow1. It’s not another matter Placido it’s also a matter of obedience to God’s every word.

Peace,and God Bless, onenow1
 
Placido,
It is certainly God’s will that parents teach their children, both under the Mosaic law and under the new law and new covenant. Failure to do that would be sin. But the converted Pharisees were the ones who insisted that circumcision was still needed, even for Gentiles, and they of course would have insisted that if baptism replaced circumcision, it needed to be done at the age of circumcision. They won the dispute, and here you are. But baptizing infants is doing the Pharisees’ will and has nothing to do with God’s will.

Being baptized when one believes and has faith is another matter entirely, and is God’s will.👍
God’s will was that entire households and entire nations be baptized …

Beyond the obvious fact that households include infants and children they also [in the first century] included servants and indentured slaves … just as the household of Abraham did … so the head of the house determined that they [the household] would be baptized and follow the “Way”, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We see this played out earlier as I noted with circumcision. Abraham was instructed to circumsize all of his male household - relatives, slaves, servants, old, middle aged and young … from that time on the male children were circusized on the 8th day … but you can also understand that adult and youth brought into the household later on would also be circumcized …

A wonderful NT sentiment … “As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord”

No Christian parent should want their children to remain in anyway set apart from the faith. Baptism is the means by which we are brought into the Christian family, heirs tothe promises of Christ, adopted by the Father… 👍 The early church baptized its infants [we have the archeological record of this in burial inscriptions of infants that died] and the Christian faithful has done so since the first recorded “households” were baptized to the present day. :yup: Even some mainline protestant churches have not lost this traditional practice of baptizing infants. Some others have lost the sacramental aspect and substituted Infant Christenings and Dedications … but the thought behind the practice is founded in the Early Church.
 
You have posted 125 times here. A catholic won’t be allowed to stay that long in a non-catholic forum, especially if he/she refers to the hosts as rude.

placido
Rev Why do you have to ask to be taken off the CA all you need to do is stop posting, did you think all you had to say about the CC ,Cathloic are going to set still and listen, da
 
Placido,
It is certainly God’s will that parents teach their children, both under the Mosaic law and under the new law and new covenant.
Under the OT law, parents were not only expected to teach their children, but also to circumcise their babies. Under the NT baptism replaces circumcision. Therefore, parents are expected to baptize their babies and teaching them. In fact that is the order according to Matthew 28 - baptize and then teach.
Failure to do that would be sin.
Yes.
But the converted Pharisees were the ones who insisted that circumcision was still needed, even for Gentiles, and they of course would have insisted that if baptism replaced circumcision, it needed to be done at the age of circumcision.
Circumcision was done in the 8th day after birth; baptism can take place any day - nothing pharisaical about that, unless you want to accuse Paul of showing pharisaical tendencies when he wrote Colossians.
But baptizing infants is doing the Pharisees’ will and has nothing to do with God’s will.
Wrong.
Being baptized when one believes and has faith is another matter entirely, and is God’s will.👍
Maybe you believe the NT is more exclusive than the OT that included babies. That would make the NT worse, not better than the OT.

placido
 
Under the OT law, parents were not only expected to teach their children, but also to circumcise their babies. Under the NT baptism replaces circumcision. Therefore, parents are expected to baptize their babies and teaching them. In fact that is the order according to Matthew 28 - baptize and then teach.

Yes.

Circumcision was done in the 8th day after birth; baptism can take place any day - nothing pharisaical about that, unless you want to accuse Paul of showing pharisaical tendencies when he wrote Colossians.

Wrong.

Maybe you believe the NT is more exclusive than the OT that included babies. That would make the NT worse, not better than the OT.

placido
Placido,
Matthew 28:19-20 tells the apostles to “teach all nations, baptizing them…” “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…”
The commission is to teach, baptize, teach to observe all things…

Paul noted in his epistles that some Pharisee converts thought circumcision was still necessary. This was not a one-time thing.

The NT emphasizes belief of the heart, not force, not threats, not doing something to someone against their will or without their consent. It emphasizes that baptism is a new birth, a second birth, a newness of life. It is inclusive of the Gentiles, who are part of the new covenant. I think that is better than the OT covenant. It preserves the agency of everyone, but gives all men and women the blessings of the grace of Christ’s suffering through their belief and faith and the healing He offers. Infants already have that grace.
 
Mickey,
If the people doing the writing of the history were the people who thought infants needed to be baptized, then they would not have written anything about a controversy. Of course the Pharisees who joined the church thought baptism should be at the same age as circumcision, because that was their tradition and tradition was extremely important to them. The apostles don’t “attest to this”. They were the earliest Christians.
LOL! No early Christian objected to the practice of infant baptism because it was not an unusual practice. Your modern odd belief of “age of reason” is a new invention.
 
But baptizing infants is doing the Pharisees’ will and has nothing to do with God’s will.
Poppycock! Entire households! Get it?
Being baptized when one believes and has faith is another matter entirely, and is God’s will.
That is not the only way. When an adult converts to the apostolic Church, he/she believes and is baptized. Otherwise we baptize our infants.

Sadly, your understanding of this holy sacrament is a modern day innovation.😦
 
LOL! No early Christian objected to the practice of infant baptism because it was not an unusual practice. Your modern odd belief of “age of reason” is a new invention.
Mickey,
Outside of using the word “household” which always when used in the New Testament appears with a connotation that each person so baptized was of age to be a believer, please demonstrate from any source you choose that “infant baptism … was not an unusual practice” within the original church established by Christ and upheld by the apostles. It would need to be before 70 AD, and be a primary source. Thanks. I will really be interested and appreciative.
 
Mickey,
Outside of using the word “household” which always when used in the New Testament appears with a connotation that each person so baptized was of age to be a believer,
Wrong. The phrase is “entire households” and you cannot skip around the truth unless you believe that infants are not part of the “entire household”. That is all the evidence that you need–it is Scriptural. Since you do not accept Sacred Tradition, the witness of the early Christians and Church Fathers is probably not going to assist your understanding. And if nothing “specific” is written about infant baptism before your imaginary threshhold of the year 70AD, it is because it was the common practice and never questioned.

You are free to believe your new innovative teaching on baptism–but at least the good people here have tried to relay the truth to you. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top