Baptism of babies & infants

[po18guy]

No, actually, they don’t. Baptists, which are the largest group of Protestants don’t. Virtually all charismatic denoms and non-denom churches don’t.

But it doesn’t matter how many people practice paedo-baptism, babies still do not meet the requirements for baptism and so we will not baptise them.

Did the paralytic who was lowered through the roof to Jesus meet the requirements for salvation? (Mark 2:3-12, Luke 5:17-25) No! His friends did. The man himself expressed neither faith nor repentance. It was the faith of his friends that saved him. And, the Church recognizes this and practices this. Do you believe that Jesus was wrong to do as He did?

By your standard, no matter how much love and faith parents may have, any adult child they may have cannot be saved if he/she is unable to communicate, or is in a coma. How do you “save” a person who cannot speak or communicate? Apparently, you can’t - not in your faith community. Some gospel you preach!

 

[kcmekim]

Catholics, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Methodists, some baptists, some non-denominationalists, and others— practice infant baptism.

Oh, so Catholics and Orthodox are Protestants now?

No Baptists practice paedo-baptism. If they do, then they’ve gone against the Baptist Distinctives and thus, are no longer Baptists.

The early reformers practiced infant baptism.

Don’t care.

You have chosen to throw away the apostolic teaching because your sect of baptists have decided against it some time during the 18th or 19th century.

Not true at all. We just cannot in good conscience baptise someone who doesn’t meet the Biblical criteria for baptism.

The Bible tells us whole households were baptized. This includes infants.

First of all, no, it doesn’t include infants. You just assume that it includes infants.

Second, show us an infant who meets the Biblical criteria to be baptised and we’ll baptize him.

It is sad that your sect parted ways with the apostolic teaching about 1800 years later.

And it’s sad that you have to be so condescending.

 

[kcmekim]

Did the paralytic who was lowered through the roof to Jesus meet the requirements for salvation? (Mark 2:3-12, Luke 5:17-25) No! His friends did. The man himself expressed neither faith nor repentance. It was the faith of his friends that saved him. And, the Church recognizes this and practices this. Do you believe that Jesus was wrong to do as He did?

The Bible doesn’t really tell us much about the man or his faith. But in any event, that’s not baptism.

By your standard, no matter how much love and faith parents may have, any adult child they may have cannot be saved if he/she is unable to communicate, or is in a coma. How do you “save” a person who cannot speak or communicate? Apparently, you can’t - not in your faith community.

But you have to remember, we believe that salvation and baptism are two seperate events. We believe that baptism follows salvation.

But you’re right. We can’t save anybody. We believe it is Christ alone who saves.

Some gospel you preach!

I agree. It is some amazing Gospel. As the late, great Adrian Rogers used to say, “There are many men who can preach the Gospel better than I can, but no man has a better Gospel to preach than I do”.

 

[po18guy]

The Bible doesn’t really tell us much about the man or his faith. But in any event, that’s not baptism.

It was forgiveness of sin. And, what is baptism, if not forgiveness of sin and entry into salvation? You disagree with Paul if you think that baptism does not wash sins away.

But you have to remember, we believe that salvation and baptism are two seperate events.

The two are inseparably intertwined. By what authority have you separated the two?

I agree. It is some amazing Gospel. “There are many men who can preach the Gospel better than I can, but no man has a better Gospel to preach than I do”.

If it does not trace back to Christ through the Twelve and their successors, it is man-made, laid on a foundation of sola scriptura sand, and is a “different gospel”. Thus, true Christians are to reject it - even if an Angel should preach it.

Please show us how your private interpretation is the true one.

 

[kcmekim]

It was forgiveness of sin. And, what is baptism, if not forgiveness of sin and entry into salvation? You disagree with Paul if you think that baptism does not wash sins away.

Yeah, I understand that you believe that. I’m not here to change your mind, only to explain to you what we believe.

If it does not trace back to Christ through the Twelve and their successors, it is man-made, laid on a foundation of sola scriptura sand, and is a “different gospel”. Thus, true Christians are to reject it - even if an Angel should preach it.

That’s an interesting theory. Thank you for sharing that. Naturally, we don’t believe it is another Gospel but we understand that Catholics and Protestants have radically different views, so it’s only natural that you would feel that it’s a false Gospel.

Please show us how your private interpretation is the true one.

I don’t recall saying anything about “my private interpretation”.

 

[Mickey]

Oh, so Catholics and Orthodox are Protestants now?

Huh???

No Baptists practice paedo-baptism. If they do, then they’ve gone against the Baptist Distinctives and thus, are no longer Baptists.

I forgot about the infallible baptist distinctives!

Don’t care.

I didn’t think so.

We just cannot in good conscience baptise someone who doesn’t meet the Biblical criteria for baptism.

Infants believe and are baptized. Sounds Scriptural to me.

First of all, no, it doesn’t include infants. You just assume that it includes infants.

Oh I see! Whole household excludes infants! Come on now, you can do better than that.

Second, show us an infant who meets the Biblical criteria to be baptised and we’ll baptize him.

You should be baptizing all infants because they all meet the requirement.

And it’s sad that you have to be so condescending.

You come here to a Catholic forum and tell everyone that infants don’t meet the Biblical criteria for baptism—and you say that I am condescending?!?

 

[po18guy]

Mickey, I wonder why he has so much grief with the Orthodox? Sheesh!

 

[kcmekim]

I forgot about the infallible baptist distictives!

We don’t believe they’re infallible, but they are definitive.

Infants believe and are baptized. Sounds Scriptural to me.

Like I said, show me an infant who meets the Biblical criteria to be baptised and I’ll baptise him.

Oh I see! Whole household excludes infants! Come on now, you can do better than that.

Better than what? That wasn’t my argument. I never said that it does or does not include infants. I just said that the text doesn’t say that it includes infants.

You should be baptizing all infants because they all meet the requirement.

Really? Can you show me the infant who can understand and articulate the Gospel?

You come here to a Catholic forum and tell everyone that Catholics, Orthodox, and mainstream protestants should not be baptizing infants—and you say that I am condescending?!?

Actually, I never said that anybody should or shouldn’t do anything. I just said that this is what we do.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, I wonder why he has so much grief with the Orthodox? Sheesh!

 

[Mickey]

We don’t believe they’re infallible, but they are definitive.

Who told you that?

Like I said, show me an infant who meets the Biblical criteria to be baptised and I’ll baptise him.

Find any infant and you will see the light of Christ in his/her eyes. What a shame that you will deny those closest to God the sacrament of holy baptism.

I just said that the text doesn’t say that it includes infants.

Whole households means whole households. Do you understand this? The text is saying whole households!

Really? Can you show me the infant who can understand and articulate the Gospel?

I do not need to show this to you. They are closest to God and we baptize them. Then we teach them how to grow in the fertile ground. It is so sad to me that you deprive your infants of this great blessing.

Actually, I never said that anybody should or shouldn’t do anything. I just said that this is what we do.

Yeah. And you also said that infants do not meet the Scriptural criteria for baptism while denying that whole househlods includes infants. How sad that the baptists invented this odd understanding.

 

[kcmekim]

Who told you that?

That’s what they are. That’s why they’re called the Baptist Distinctives: because they’re what distinguishes us as Baptists.

Find any infant and you will see the light of Christ in his/her eyes.

What verse tells us that that’s the criteria for baptism?

What a shame that you will deny those closest to God the sacrament of holy baptism.

We believe that baptism, while not salvific, is something to be taken very seriously. Because we do take it so seriously, we feel that it would be both disobedient and irresponsible for us to deviate from the Biblical criteria for baptism.

Whole households means whole households. Do you understand this? The text is saying whole households!

I agree. It says “whole households”. Whether or not it says whole households was never the issue.

I do not need to show this to you.

Then I can not, in good conscience, baptise them.

It is so sad to me that you deprive your infants of this great blessing.

I’m sorry that makes you sad, but God has given us His word and we are not to deviate from it.

Yeah. And you also said that infants do not meet the Scriptural criteria for baptism while denying that whole househlods includes infants.

OK, just to clarify, since you seem to be a little confused about what I said, I* did *say that infants do not meet the Biblical criteria for baptism. I did not deny that whole households includes infants. I said that there is nothing in the text to indicate that it makes an exception for infants in that household.

And, again, I did not say that Catholics or Orthodox or anyone else should or shouldn’t do anything. I just said that this is what we do. What Catholics and Orthodox choose to do is entirely up to them.

 

[po18guy]

Yeah, I understand that you believe that. I’m not here to change your mind, only to explain to you what we believe.

The proper interpretation of scripture, as well as the history of the Church disagree with some of what you believe. That’s all I’m saying. Some of those beliefs are new in Christianity.

That’s an interesting theory. Thank you for sharing that. Naturally, we don’t believe it is another Gospel but we understand that Catholics and Protestants have radically different views, so it’s only natural that you would feel that it’s a false Gospel.

Trace the history of the particulars of your beliefs. The trail runs cold no more than 500 years ago. That I find to be concerning.

I don’t recall saying anything about “my private interpretation”.

Those who follow sola scriptura are ALL using private interpretation - knowingly or not. Jesus founded a Church, not a bible. The Church He founded had authority to write parts of and compile the entire bible. It also has the authority by the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture and prophecy. Those who interpret scripture on their own are engaging in private interpretation. The Apostle Peter taught against this.

 

[po18guy]

And, again, I did not say that Catholics or Orthodox or anyone else should or shouldn’t do anything. I just said that this is what we do. What Catholics and Orthodox choose to do is entirely up to them.

The Catholic and Orthodox are the only Churches that trace their origins directly to the Twelve Apostles. That is something to ponder.

 

[kcmekim]

The Catholic and Orthodox are the only Churches that trace their origins directly to the Twelve Apostles. That is something to ponder.

Yes, as a Catholic, I understand that you believe that.

 

[kcmekim]

The proper interpretation of scripture, as well as the history of the Church disagree with some of what you believe.

I disagree. I understand that, as a Catholic, you believe that, but I don’t accept your interpretation of scripture as correct.

That’s all I’m saying. Some of those beliefs are new in Christianity.Trace the history of the particulars of your beliefs. The trail runs cold no more than 500 years ago.

OK. Can you give an example of any of the “particulars of our belief” that are not founded on scripture?

That I find to be concerning.Those who follow sola scriptura are ALL using private interpretation - knowingly or not.

OK. How does acknowledging the Bible as authoritative mean that we all use private interpretation?

Jesus founded a Church, not a bible.

I see. So then, you disagree with 2 Tim when it says that all scripture is God-breathed?

The Church He founded had authority to write parts of and compile the entire bible. It also has the authority by the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture and prophecy.

Yep.

Those who interpret scripture on their own are engaging in private interpretation. The Apostle Peter taught against this.

I disagree. The Bible is very clear that the priesthood of the believer allows us to read and understand the scriptures for ourselves.

 

[guanophore]

No, Ed. The Bible cannot be infallible. The charism of infallibility applies only to persons. In order to be fallible, one must be able to act, to choose, to discern, and to take responsibility. Scritpure, however, Holy, does not posess these characteristics. That is why Jesus built a Church, made of persons. The Scripture is inspired and inerrant. It is this error or ascribing qualities to Scriptures that it does not posess that has produced so many divisions in the Body.

Hi guanophore, thanks for your reply. -----LINE #1 above, If the Bible is not infallible then the Roman Catholic church has no claim to be either since they get their information from the Bible and not in reverse.

This is just false, Ed. Such a statement shows your lack of knowledge about the history of your faith. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, and the Church founded by Christ was alive and well, fully functional before any word of the NT was written. Catholics wrote, collected, protected, canonized and promulgated the scriptures that were to become the Bible as we know it. The Catholic Church did this infallibly by the power of the HS.

Scriptures do not have a will or discernment, so they cannot act, and they are therefore not “infallible”. They are inerrant, and inspired.

   I suggest that you read John 1:14 and stay on that verse until you can understand it. “The WORD became flesh---” The WORD is Jesus.  Why is Jesus being called the WORD?------

Christians today seem to confuse the person of Jesus with their Holy Scriptures, and make an idol out of their bible.

Jesus was the Word before, during and will be long after there are no bibles anymore.

If you know the doctrine so well state it. p/quote]

No, Ed. If you wish to persist in violating the forum rules by getting off topic, you are on your own. If you want to start another thread on infallibility, I am happy to oblige you.
EdOsiecki;5641761:

#3 Apparently you don’t understand Pentecost. There were 120 women and men who received the Holy Spirit. Not the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. It didn’t exist. The peole are the church-----

Those 120 people comprised the magesterium, but I agree, they were not Roman. Jesus gave His authority to the 12, and they to their successors. The churhc is much more than the body of believers. This deficient idea of “church” is almost as problematic as the error of Sola Scriptura.

 You got this one right. The Holy Spirit convicts, the Blood of Jesus forgives sins and clears the conscience.  There’s nothing left for baptism to do is there?

This is what happens in baptism. Well, most are convicted prior to baptism…

 This is where you have a problem, an infant can not call on His name. Why then baptized them?------

No, Ed. Those who have received the faith from the Apostles do not have a problem. Apparently YOU are the one with the problem.

Babies are baptized because baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the Kingdom. They are baptized upon the profession of faith made by their parents and grandparents. This is the same profession of faith that Jesus’ parents made when He ws circumcised. We understand that we are to follow His example, and that of His parents.

What does exploring the ancient rites have to with my question?  Nothing!

You are making statements that indicate that you have very little knowledge.

They may have always gone together but calling on the Lord to be saved is not doing something that the Lord has commanded.

I am sorry, but this statement makes no sense to me.

 Here you insinuate that your method of interpretation by Magisterium only, which in essence means leave your brains at the door, is superior to what the Holy Spirit teaches through individuals.

It may seem to you that brains are left at the door because you have not studied the history of your faith. Yes, what the HS teaches trhough the Church is superior to what can be gained by individuals. God set it up that way. It keeps individuals from getting too far off into tangents. As you can see from the council of Jerusalem, James writes 'it seemed right to the HS and to us". This is the way the Magesterium functions. The HS together with the teaching authority discerning and teaching what has been revealed by God.

That contradicts Scripture my friend . John 1:27, ”As for you, the anointing you received from Him (Holy Spirit) remains in you, and you DO NOT  need anyone to TEACH you.”  This is as clear as it can be to me and it ought to be to you also.

What they were taught and what they believed was in unity with the Apostles. Nowadays, people go off on their own, believing that they can figure it out better than what was revealed to the Apostles.

God is not bound by the sacraments. He can save whoever He wants. So why then do you baptize infants and force salvation on them?------ ED O.

Salvation cannot be “forced” on anyone. When you can answer this question, you will know:

Why did the Jews circumcise their children, and “force” them to participate in the covenant with God?

 

[guanophore]

I've said this before and I'll say it again, it appears to me that every time  a Catholic sees the words "water or wash" it automatically means baptism. There isn't a Scripture in the Bible that states baptism ALONE forgives sins and one becomes born again by it, without something connect to it. Like this Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, CALLING ON HIS NAME."

This makes sense, because the children of the Reformers separated the act of dipping a person in water from all the spiritual events that the Apostles taught occurred during baptism. For those of Apostolic faiths, baptism (the act if dipping our pouring) was never separated from these other “somethings connected to it” as you say.

Many evangelicals, because they have never received the faith of the Apostles, think that we believe the act of submerging a person in water is what saves. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Acts 2:38 is always being quoted that baptism forgives sins. You can't jerk one verse out of it's context and get a true meaning. v37 says they were cut to heart by the message (of the cross) that Peter preached. v41 those who accepted that message were baptized. In simple English they believed on Jesus to forgive their sins not the water in baptism.

I agree, one cannot derive a doctrine from a single scripture. However, none of Catholic doctrine is “jerked” from Scripture. All of Catholic doctrine was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. Therefore, when we read scripture, we understand it in the light of the faith that was passed down to us. The NT is the product of the Church,and reflects what the Church believes and teaches. That is why it is not possible to understand it apart from Catholic Teaching.

I also agree that those who heard Peter were convicted and wanted to be saved. When they asked what they must do to be saved, Peter told them to be baptized. The Apostles never separated the work of the HS and the saving grace of God from water baptism. This did not occur until American Fundamentalism came on the scene.

In Acts 10:43, "All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in HIM, receives FORGIVENESS of sins through His name. v44 'While Peter was still speaking these words, the HOLY SPIRIT came on all who heard the MESSAGE. Cornelius and all present had their sins forgiven, received the Holy Spirit and became born again WITHOUT baptism. Where they later baptized? Yes! but not for the reason you think to have their sins forgiven, they did it as an act of righteousness as Jesus states in Mat 3:15 and as He commands us to do in Mat 28:19

The Apostles understood that the HS was not to be separated from the water. God poured out the Spirit in a visible way to make Peter understand that the Gentiles were also to be baptized (made members of the Body of Christ). Peter ordered them to be baptized at once, because he understood the HS to be connected with the water.

Let me put it another way, if water baptism forgave sins, what reason would there be for Jesus to come to earth and die such a horrible death? He could have called all the apostles and teach them like He did Paul. It’s the Blood of Jesus that frees us from all sins and not the water in baptism Rev 1:5.

Yes, it is the blood of Jesus that frees us from sin. In baptism we are joined with Him in His death, and clothed with Him. His grace takes away our filthy rags, and we take on His righteousness. Jesus was clear that, if He does not wash us, we have no part in Him.

What I’m saying here is what the apostles taught. It’s not a “new gosple” what you believe is what Roman Catholicism teaches. ED O.

No, Ed, you are not teaching what the Apostles taught. You are presenting “a different gospel” than the one that was delivered to us by them. Catholicism is not Roman, and even those Eastern Christians who are not in unity with the bishop of Rome, but received the faith from the Apostles share this doctrine.

If you have issues against “Romans”, then I encourage you to go convince our Orthodox brethren that what they were given by the Apostles is wrong, and you are right. Good luck with that!

 

[guanophore]

We don’t believe in paedobaptism simply because babies cannot meet the Biblical requirements for baptism.

This makes good sense. You see, when Jesus gave baptism to the church, there was no Bible. When Jesus taught His Apostles to baptize, and authorized them, commanding them, there was no bible. The Apostles then went about making disciples and baptizing, including infants, children, invalids and people who could not speak for themselves based upon the faith of others who had responsibility for them. They did this because Jesus taught them that baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the Kingdom.

“Biblical Requirements” for baptism were derived in America in the 1900’s with the anti catholic anti sacramentalism movement. They are a modern innovation, and do not reflect what the Apostles believed and taught.

No, actually, they don’t. Baptists, which are the largest group of Protestants don’t. Virtually all charismatic denoms and non-denom churches don’t.

But it doesn’t matter how many people practice paedo-baptism, babies still do not meet the requirements for baptism and so we will not baptise them.

This statement represents the myopic attitude of modern American evangelicals.

The denial that the majority of Protestants baptize infants makes it clear that the writer thinks his own experience of Protestantism reflects the norm around the world.

Don’t care.

This may be the most serious part of the problem. The modern American fundamentalist does not care what the Apostles beleived and taught. He does not really care why the Reformers separated, or why they retained certain belief instead of others. All he cares about is his own understanding of what the scripture means. It is an idiosycratic form of Christianity.

Not true at all. We just cannot in good conscience baptise someone who doesn’t meet the Biblical criteria for baptism.

I do believe that y’all make this mistake in all sincerity.

First of all, no, it doesn't include infants. You just assume that it includes infants.

No, it is not an assumption. It is the teaching that we received from the Apostles, who were the ones baptizing infants. Since you are separated from the Apostolic Succession, it is understandible that you believe it does not exist.

Second, show us an infant who meets the Biblical criteria to be baptised and we'll baptize him.

The Apostolic Faith is not dependent upon the Bible. The Apostles were baptizing infants before a word of the NT was written. I understand, though, that the Bible is all you have left, and therefore you must cling to it.

And it’s sad that you have to be so condescending.

Not a condescending speck there. The truth is that it is sad for all of us to see how far you have departed from the Apostolic faith.

 

[placido]

We don’t believe in paedobaptism simply because babies cannot meet the Biblical requirements for baptism.

If those “requirements” existed from the beginning, why is it that nobody “saw” them until the sixteen century?

placido

 

[placido]

We don’t believe they’re infallible, but they are definitive.

And you are infallible?

Like I said, show me an infant who meets the Biblical criteria to be baptised and I’ll baptise him.

Babies in all Christian families from 33 AD to 1600 met “the Biblical criteria” and were baptised - then, something changed. But it was neither “the Biblical criteria” nor the babies that changed. It was the understanding of some self-appointed teachers that deviated from the gospel truth.

Better than what? That wasn’t my argument. I never said that it does or does not include infants. I just said that the text doesn’t say that it includes infants.

Neither does it say it excludes infants.

Really? Can you show me the infant who can understand and articulate the Gospel?

Let us start with the baby in Elizabeth womb (Luke 1). Don’t you see that that baby could understand and articulate the Gospel even before his birth?

placido