Baptism of babies & infants

[tweetymom]

For instance, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians believe essentially the same things (at least as far as the essential doctrines are concerned). But even though we follow the same scriptures, preach the same Gospel, worship with the same hymns, affirm the same creeds and confessions, etc, each denomination has a different focus, that is, a different arena in which to apply those teachings.

You believe that baptism of babies is not permitted. They do. So, they bring you a deathly ill Presbyterian child, because their pastor is out of town. What do you do? In essence you tell them to keep it alive long enough to confess Jesus as an adult, when it can be baptized. Right?

Protestantism almost completely erased the concept of scandal, in practice. So, just worship at the church with the best stained glass windows? Is that the will of God?

I worship where I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit.

And so do I brother. Sometimes you have to bring the Holy Spirit to Church and He is available anytime you seek Him Praise God:thumbsup:

 

[po18guy]

I worship where I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit.

As it should be. But, what about the question?

 

[awantz]

As it should be. But, what about the question?

What question? I didn’t know anyone asked me a question.

 

[po18guy]

So, if baptism is only to be practiced on adults, what happens to babies who die?

If they go to heaven, why not unbaptized adults?

If those babies do not go to heaven, and there is no scriptural assurance that they do, why not baptize them?

How does baptism harm a baby?

Does a baptized baby go to hell?

Too many holes in this theology.

 

[awantz]

So, if baptism is only to be practiced on adults, what happens to babies who die?

They are saved by the faith of their parents.

If they go to heaven, why not unbaptized adults?

Because, unbaptized adults chose against salvation. A baby doesn’t have that choice yet.

How does baptism harm a baby?

It doesn’t harm the baby, but it takes away the chance for them to be able to remember a wonderful and important moment/ time in their life.

Does a baptized baby go to hell?

No, as long as the parents are saved. If the parents aren’t saved well then I’m not sure what would happen to the baby, but I don’t think that God would send the baby to Hell.

 

[tweetymom]

They are saved by the faith of their parents.

Because, unbaptized adults chose against salvation. A baby doesn’t have that choice yet.

It doesn’t harm the baby, but it takes away the chance for them to be able to remember a wonderful and important moment/ time in their life.

No, as long as the parents are saved. If the parents aren’t saved well then I’m not sure what would happen to the baby, but I don’t think that God would send the baby to Hell.

Amen to that:thumbsup:

 

[onenow1]

They are saved by the faith of their parents.

Quote= onenow1, Indeed! Exactly why Catholics, Orthodox and others baptise infants.

Quote=awantz, Because, unbaptized adults chose against salvation. A baby doesn’t have that choice yet.

=onenow1. Children cannot choose a lot of things in life, their parents must choose for them and baptism should be one of those things; And don’t forget we have the Sacrement of Confirmation.

 

[pipper]

If they are not in communion with the Catholic Church, they are not Catholic, in spite of hijacking the name. Either that, or they are such brothers and sisters as the Chaldean Catholics and others, who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

They themselves do, by their separation from one another. They have substantial doctrinal differences, or they would be unified. Presbyterians baptize babies and children, for instance. pcusa.org/101/101-infant.htm

umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.1697379/k.9027/Baptism_Overview.htm

The Methodists baptize babies and teach that baptism should not be repeated. You disagree with both of these, but yet you are “united” Really?

As it is, they appear to be unified only in opposition to the Catholic Church. Is the truth decided by a vote?

I like your use of “except”, as though the Catholic Church is fatally flawed for not going along with heretics. Great! Anyway, they must not be associated with or affiliated with their mainstream communities, many of which use the three year lectionary cycle. That is their free will.

I am personally aware of this being done exactly as I have described. Does it also happen as you have described? Of course, but no one on earth has authority to require, or prohibit you or I from founding our own faith community. All it takes is a bible and rent money.

There are many hundreds of groups who have “catholic” in the names. They are in many cases heretical and in all cases schismatic. They are called “old Catholic” or “independent Catholic”. A simple google search will give you many/many hits. They usually go to great lengths trying to establish their “orders” in apostolic succession. You will find these “catholics” often exist on the internet only having in many cases one church in the living room of the “Patriarch” or “bishop”, and have impresive sounding hierarchies but often no clergy supervised by the heirarchs. I personally was aqainted with one of those “bishops”, who had his cathedral in his trailer house, and worked in a vaccuum cleaner factory.

These people will be listed as “catholic” on the census but they are not in communion with the Holy See, or with anyone else.

 

[kcmekim]

Ok, but what does any of this have to do with the topic? The point is, the Church baptized infants until modern Evangelicals rebelled against this Apostolic teaching 200 years ago and less. The rebellion against the Apostolic Faith creates more and more division.

We don’t get our doctrines from what men do, but from the word of God. Better to rebel against an alleged church practice that is Unbiblical than to rebel against the word of God.

I don’t think anyone said that…what exist is a plethora of groups in contradiction to one another that all believe they have the Truth.

Yes, you did say that and so far, you’ve refused to give any examples of this alleged “plethora of groups in contradiction to one another that all believe they have the Truth”.

How do you know this? Have you ever walked in?

Are you suggesting that Catholic doctrine varies from Catholic church to Catholic church?

I am aware of no such thing. While I will affirm that this “sending” does happen, there are just as many that get disgusted and go out, and restart without being sent. I have met several on this board!

Name them. I want to PM them and ask them if your claim about them is true.

How do you determine which docrtrines are “non-essential”. Since Catholics believe baptism is, and some don’t, who decides?

Wow. This is getting really frustrating. OK. For the tenth time, we look at the Bible and if it says that a doctrine is an essential doctrine, then we consider it an essential doctrine.

On the other hand, if the Bible does not say that a doctrine is essential or says that it is a non-essential, disputable matter, or adiaphoron, then we consider it a non-essential.

“split” is never necessary. Jesus constructed His church so this would not happen.

And I disagree. I can think of several instances in scripture where we’re told to “come out from among them”, “do not fellowship with them”, and to “mark them and consider them anathema”.

You should return to the Church founded by Christ for the sake of unity!

We’re already a part of the church founded by Christ. Hard to return to a place where you already are.

Where do you find this in scriputre?

Seriously? Where do you find the church working together to spread the Gospel???

I think you are just making this up to cover up the disunity.

You keep on making this charge, but you’ve yet to present any evidence.

Jesus set up a system to deal with that, which all of you apparently ignore.

No, actually, we follow the system He set up very closely.

Such a statement indicates a conscience seared as with a hot iron. Jesus was clear that the world would know we are Christians by our love and unity, not by our separateness and “distinct denominations”.

I agree. And the fact that we do love one another and are unified shows that we are Christians.

What does this have to do with the topic?

I’m just responding to what you posted. If you feel it’s off topic, you shouldn’t have posted it.

Curiously some of the same ones that deny infants baptism.

Well, I guess we’ll never know, since you refuse to back up your claims and give examples.

I find this fascinating. Does your Bible have little asterisks beside those verses that reference “essential doctrines”?

Of course not. Why would it need asterisks? Why wouldn’t it be enough for the Bible just to declare those things essential?

Who decides that “the exclusivity of Christ” is an essential “biblical doctrine” and baptism is not?

God.

 

[kcmekim]

The fact of the matter is that the Bible supports the baptism of infants on the premise that sick people were taken to the Lord who were so ill that they were not able to advocate for themselves but had to be advocated by others.

What does that have to do with baptism?

If the Bible says that a person must meet a set of requirements before he can be baptised, where does it say that he is then exempt from these requirements just because someone else wants him to be baptised?

hosemonkey:

That you do not think it is a scandal is a scandal in and of itself.

Why? Why isn’t it a good thing to believe that it’s good to be unified in Christ?

protestants should be ashamed of themselves for so grieviously wounding the Body of Christ by their disobedience and rebellion. In no possible way can you claim to be “one church.”

That’s a pretty serious charge. Do you have any examples?

 

[tweetymom]

What does that have to do with baptism?

If the Bible says that a person must meet a set of requirements before he can be baptised, where does it say that he is then exempt from these requirements just because someone else wants him to be baptised?

Why? Why isn’t it a good thing to believe that it’s good to be unified in Christ?

That’s a pretty serious charge. Do you have any examples?

You know what kcmekim you are dealing with 2 or 3 pompuse know it alls in the universe They know everything and to waste your time with those jerks doesn’t make sense. They donot know everything nor maybe they don’t know Christ cause I don’t see any love shown here Sorry

 

[kcmekim]

Pipper:

Fundamentalists generally have no seminaries at all

That’s really interesting, since I can think of at least two dozen fundamentalist seminaries off the top of my head. ,

What is taught at those “bible colleges” and “schools a praychin” (they are usually VERY southern my former denomination exists only in the south and where southeners have migrated) teach only the most superficial literalist aproach to the bible.

And yet, some of the church’s greatest theologians are from the South.

They have no interest in history of the church or the bible

That’s an outright lie. We take church history very seriously. I know this to be a fact because I teach classes on church history. It’s a required segment of any seminary degree.

and certainly no interest in modern bible scholarship

Again, this is an outright lie.

Fundamental preachers only praych.

Actually, most fundamental preachers not only preach (and, by the way, we don’t talk like that. Please feel free to join us in the 21st century), but some of the best theologians in the church today are fundamentalists.

I will never forget sitting in a church and a teen age girl “responded to the invitation” and her dad jumped up from his theater seat to baptise her, by submersion of course.

I think you mean immersion, Professor Einstein.

No one is ordained in that church and any lay member can do anything.

Again, you’re lying.

Our pastors must be ordained and not every lay member can do anything. For instance, lay members are not elders or deacons and cannot fulfil their roles.

The bible colleges and schools of preaching are optional and the majority of the preachers in fact do nor attend.

I just can’t imagine the Hell that would be raised if a Protestant came here and lied about Catholicism like this.

po18guy:

If they are not in communion with the Catholic Church, they are not Catholic, in spite of hijacking the name.

And yet, when I point out that someone who doesn’t meet the Biblical criteria of a Christian isn’t, by definition, a Christian, you say that I have no right to say that. Your hypocrisy is amusing.

They themselves do, by their separation from one another.

Please give examples.

They have substantial doctrinal differences, or they would be unified.

I disagree. Please list any doctrines that the Bible defines as essential and how we differ.

Presbyterians baptize babies and children, for instance. pcusa.org/101/101-infant.htm

The Methodists baptize babies and teach that baptism should not be repeated. You disagree with both of these, but yet you are “united” Really?

Yes, we’re still united, in spite of our disagreements over non-essential issues.

I am personally aware of this being done exactly as I have described.

Examples, please.

Does it also happen as you have described? Of course, but no one on earth has authority to require, or prohibit you or I from founding our own faith community. All it takes is a bible and rent money.

But you didn’t say anything about founding a “faith community”.

It is also clear that there should not be factions among you.

I agree. That’s why I think it’s such a good thing that we’re unified.

Look, either there is one truth or there is no truth. Your former pastor assures that he has the truth. You disagree. Who’s the judge?

The Bible is the authority. And, in case you haven’t been reading my posts before you responded to them (and it doesn’t appear that any of the Catholics here are interested in showing me the respect of doing that), I’ve already explained to you that the issue was resolved long ago. Do you know how it was resolved? The pastor and the church leaders, also speaking for the church body, repented of these heretical doctrines and sought a lot of Godly counsel to right themselves. They’re now doctrinally sound and are considered restored and back in fellowship with the church. Here is the problem: Personal opinion is the judge.

There is no overriding authority. No judge. No leader. No Bishop to declare the issue closed. Thank God we have a Bishop to decide, and the grace of obedience to follow!

Thank God we have the authority of the church, given to us by Jesus Christ.

You believe that baptism of babies is not permitted. They do. So, they bring you a deathly ill Presbyterian child, because their pastor is out of town. What do you do? In essence you tell them to keep it alive long enough to confess Jesus as an adult, when it can be baptized. Right?

We would open up the scriptures and explain why we cannot baptise the baby, but that we will pray for the baby and his family and support them in any way that we can.

Protestantism almost completely erased the concept of scandal, in practice. So, just worship at the church with the best stained glass windows? Is that the will of God?

The Bible does give us principles to follow and shows us the characteristics of a Biblically sound church, but doesn’t give us specific instructions on which church to attend.

 

[tweetymom]

Pipper you are so off base I wonder what tree you fell out of? You SEEM to think you know a lot about Protestantism but trust me you don’t. I will have to add one more pompuse preson to my last post:thumbsup:

 

[kcmekim]

po18guy:

So, if baptism is only to be practiced on adults, what happens to babies who die?

The Bible doesn’t say, but does seem to indicate that babies who die do go to Heaven.

If they go to heaven, why not unbaptized adults?

All people are deserving of Hell: Adults, babies, and everyone in between. However, scripture seems to indicate that God, being rich in mercy, judges babies by a different standard because of (a) their inability to respond to the Gospel and (b) their inability to comprehend the moral consequences of their sin.

Adults can comprehend the moral consequences of their sin and can respond to the Gospel.

If those babies do not go to heaven, and there is no scriptural assurance that they do, why not baptize them?

Because they do not meet the Biblical requirements for baptism.

How does baptism harm a baby?

First of all, we don’t abstain from baptising babies because it harms the baby, but because babies cannot meet the Biblical requirements for baptism.

Second, I do believe that it harms them later in life because in innoculates them from the Gospel. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met who have told me that they’re going to Heaven in spite of their sin because they were sprinkled with some water as a baby.

Does a baptized baby go to hell?

Baptism has no bearing on whether or not one goes to Hell.

 

[hosemonkey]

Pipper you are so off base I wonder what tree you fell out of? You SEEM to think you know a lot about Protestantism but trust me you don’t. I will have to add one more pompuse preson to my last post:thumbsup:

Please tell me what a pompuse preson is.

Is that another “denomination” of protestantism?

C’mon tweetymom, you are really a protestant, aren’t you.

 

[kcmekim]

They are saved by the faith of their parents.

What verse is that?

No, as long as the parents are saved. If the parents aren’t saved well then I’m not sure what would happen to the baby,

What verse is that?

 

[onenow1]

We don’t get our doctrines from what men do, but from the word of God. Better to rebel against an alleged church practice that is Unbiblical than to rebel against the word of God.

Quote=onenow1, We do from inspired men with Apostolic succession !:yup:

Quote=kcmekin Yes, you did say that and so far, you’ve refused to give any examples of this alleged “plethora of groups in contradiction to one another that all believe they have the Truth”.

Here’s some ! there are many more ! >>>Since there is only one truth in Holy Scripture, and only one Holy Spirit to prompt us,
how then can: This happen.

Baptists believe once saved, always saved, yet the Church of Christ says this is not scriptural?

Seventh Day Adventists say we have to worship on Saturday, but Presbyterians say on Sunday?

Lutherans believe in the ‘true presence’ in the Holy Eucharist, yet Baptists do not?

Episcopalians say The Trinity is 3 persons in one GOD, yet Mormons say it is 3 separate GOD’s?

Methodists accept female ministers, yet Baptists say it is not Biblical?

The Assembly of GOD uses instrumental music, yet the Church of Christ says it is not Biblical?

Whom are we to believe ?

Peace and God Bless onenow1.

 

[hosemonkey]

Because, unbaptized adults chose against salvation. A baby doesn’t have that choice yet

What happens to the baby has nothing to do with the parent’s state of grace. Innocent unbaptised children are safe in the mercy of God, as they have committed no sin.

 

[kcmekim]

Baptists believe once saved, always saved, yet the Church of Christ says this is not scriptural?

But OSAS is not an essential doctrine.

Seventh Day Adventists say we have to worship on Saturday, but Presbyterians say on Sunday?

Actually, if you had bothered to read the verse I presented the first time this was brought up, you would have seen that Paul states that we are free to worship on whatever day we like.

Lutherans believe in the ‘true presence’ in the Holy Eucharist, yet Baptists do not?

Not an essential doctrine.

Episcopalians say The Trinity is 3 persons in one GOD, yet Mormons say it is 3 separate GOD’s?

Mormons aren’t even Christians.

Methodists accept female ministers, yet Baptists say it is not Biblical?

This isn’t even a doctrine.

The Assembly of GOD uses instrumental music, yet the Church of Christ says it is not Biblical?

Again, this isn’t even a doctrine.

 

[tweetymom]

Please tell me what a pompuse preson is.

Is that another “denomination” of protestantism?

C’mon tweetymom, you are really a protestant, aren’t you.

Thank you Mr. spelling sheriff and the word is pompous what a lot of people here are. YES I am a CHRISTIAN CATHOLIC Oh and thank you all for showing the love of Christ in this thread, I think you all are more concerned with what you think you know then you actually do know:shrug: