J
jstew
Guest
It still does not mean that it is NOT for infants.
- Status
B
brosam
Guest
How many infants have you ever heard of who were capable of comprehending their own sinfulness, repenting of that sin, comprehending the necessity of Christ’s atonement, and then placing their faith in that atonement?
J
jstew
Guest
The Bible??? When did this happen?? I don’t recall anywhere in the Bible it saying that CHrist handed Peter or any deciple the Bible and saying “here is your instruction manual.” He told them that he would send his advocate to lead them in all truth. The bible was never even totally put together until the 4th century. Some of the letters included in the Bible were written well after Christ ascended into heaven. The writers of these letters never knew thatthey would even be part of the BIble. They did not even know the Bible would come to be. Millions of people could not read. Why would CHrist even think about leaving a book as the sole authority??? That does not make any logical sense???
J
jstew
Guest
I am pulling this from an article by Karl
"Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are we to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them?
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). "
"Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are we to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them?
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). "
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
And nothing that excludes them either.
No, we’re basing doctrine on what the earliest Christians - who learned the Faith directly from the Apostles - did. It is you who are following a more recent interpretation.
Is that a typo? I’m not familiar with that word.
As I said above, and I’ll repeat as often as necessary, we base doctrine on the testimony of the earliest Christians who learned the Faith directly from the Apostles. Were it not for Catholic monks painstakingly copying manuscripts for centuries, you would not have a Bible!
The Orthodox Church does it all the time.
M
mercygate
Guest
You equivocate, and you are beginning to thrash. Nothing excludes “infants” from the household.
Were there Christians before the New Testament? Of course. Non-Catholics base doctrine on THEIR Iinterpretation of the Bible. Catholics have a right to interpret what the Bible means ‘between the lines’ because the Church wrote the New Testament. The Bible is part of the Tradition of the Church. The Church IS “what is between the lines.” The Bible is not a cookbook.
You do not find it problematic that two people, both claiming to base their teaching on Baptism solely and exclusively on the Bible, come to different conclusions on whether infants should be baptized?
Can you flesh that out in more detail? Do you plunge the person in while reciting the formula? Do you submerge them 3 times or once? Do you walk them into the font and pour?
Eastern Rite Catholics baptize ALL infants by COMPLETE immersion. In the Latin Rite it is an option, though rarely used. We normally pour the water. Adults are now more frequently being baptized in baptismal pools.
B
brosam
Guest
No, actually I’ve been very consistent on this.
And did your church also invent sloppy hermeneutics?
You’re the one who wrote the Bible. Surely, you should know what it teaches about adiopheron.
Submerge all of the body.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Perhaps a better question, or a more dangerous one, is did these households include servants. Based on the passages, there is a good chance that they did. A servant is considered part of the household in Biblical times. Now that said, are we to assume that ALL of the servants accepted Christ before they were baptized? Or even that ALL of the servants heard the message? Remember the story of Mary and Martha, one worked while the other listened. Is this not possible with a servant too? That said, if the whole household was baptized, did that include servants who did not hear or may not have accepted the Truth about Christ? I see three possibilities. Assuming there were servants, (1) the whole household was not baptized, (2) everyone in the home heard the message, accepted the message, was convicted at that time as a believer, and was baptized, or (3) some of the household was baptized without a full conviction of faith.
- Status