Catholic Baptism vs. Protestant Baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Right here

Mar 16:16
He that BELIEVETH and is baptized shall be saved; but he that BELIEVETH NOT shall be damned.
St. Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

And lastly, the reason the rite of Baptism has been carried for the past 20 centuries it because Christians are keeping the commands of St. Paul as he said:

2 Thess: 2:14-15:
To this end he has also called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the** traditions** that you were taught, either by an** oral statement** or by a letter of ours
And Holy Baptism is one of these Traditions.
 
St. Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

And lastly, the reason the rite of Baptism has been carried for the past 20 centuries it because Christians are keeping the commands of St. Paul as he said:

2 Thess: 2:14-15:

And Holy Baptism is one of these Traditions.
Can a baby believe?
 
Okay, just answer this question.
Can a baby believe?
A babe is dependent for everything from their parents right? What makes their spiritual welfare different from their bodily welfare? WE ARE BODY AND SOUL!
 
Okay, just answer this question.
Can a baby believe?
Babies can’t believe but they must be baptized so they can be cleanse from the stains of original sin(The sin of Adam and Eve). They must be taught by their parents about their faith, and to be taught a Catholic Christian life. I quoted verses from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

After an infant is baptized, and is taught by their parents or godparents of the ways of Christ, they are confirmed. A child is confirm when they are 7 or 8 yrs old.
 
believers,

Show me a Christian document other than the Bible that does not allow infant baptism? Well, the Bible does imply it in Acts when Peter baptized entire households.
 
Babies can’t believe but they must be baptized so they can be cleanse from the stains of original sins. They must be taught by their parents about their faith, and to be taught a Catholic Christian life. I quoted verses from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

After an infant is baptized, and is taught by their parents or godparents of the ways of Christ, they are confirmed. A child is confirm when they are 7 or 8 yrs old.
Well, the Holy Spirit said you MUST BELIEVE before you can be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Someone here is wrong. Either the Holy Spirit or you.
 
A babe is dependent for everything from their parents right? What makes their spiritual welfare different from their bodily welfare? WE ARE BODY AND SOUL!
Mar 16:16
He that BELIEVETH and is baptized (refers to the baptism of the Holy Ghost) shall be saved; but he that BELIEVETH NOT shall be damned.

Notice the last part of this verse. SHALL BE DAMNED. You better be right.
 
Well, the Holy Spirit said you MUST BELIEVE before you can be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Someone here is wrong. Either the Holy Spirit or you.
The Holy Spirit is not wrong. The ECF and the Early Church practice infant baptism, so were they wrong?

I doubt the Apostles mislead their successors.
 
Mar 16:16
He that BELIEVETH and is baptized (refers to the baptism of the Holy Ghost) shall be saved; but he that BELIEVETH NOT shall be damned.

Notice the last part of this verse. SHALL BE DAMNED. You better be right.
Are you losing your charity? I sense great anger in your tone.
 
Christ Calls All to Baptism

Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists (“re-baptizers”) echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).

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?
 
No, it isn’t. A baby cannot believe.

Mar 16:16
He that BELIEVETH and is baptized shall be saved; BUT he that BELIEVETH NOT shall be damned.
vs the statement:
Only God knows where babies go. As for us adults, we must repent and be baptized (with the Holy Ghost)
Theologic hoops.

Ready to bring out Mark yet? (obviously we have debated this before)

The problem with the charismatic doctrine is that it is schitzophrenic. It can’t make up it’s mind which is true, i.e. subjective truth when God has revealed objective truth.

(shall we wait to get into the fact that this doctrine began this century in the 1960’s or wait?) All those darn christians who got it wrong for 1930 years.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
In Place of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

Were Only Adults Baptized?

Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no “cradle Christians,” people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Specific Biblical References?

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).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
 
Catholics From the First

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]).

No Cry of “Invention!”

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants”; it simply says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.” Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16).
 
Mar 16:16
He that BELIEVETH and is baptized (refers to the baptism of the Holy Ghost) shall be saved; but he that BELIEVETH NOT shall be damned.

Notice the last part of this verse. SHALL BE DAMNED. You better be right.
Baptism can be one of three ways:
  1. water
  2. desire
  3. blood
WHAT IS BAPTISM OF DESIRE? Baptism of desire is the implicit desire for baptism of water by a person who makes an act of perfect love of God,based on faith and with a sincere sorrow for one’s sins. Such was the casein the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter encountered pagans who, moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed the greatness of God. “Peter himself then said, ‘Could anyone refuse the water of baptism to these people, now they have received the Holy Spirit…?’” (Acts 10:46-47).

Just as the child cannot feed himself, the child cannot believe by himself (before the age of reason). Come on man! Whats easier? Beliveing in God or feeding yourself?

Obviously, it is having faith in God. So if the baby cannot even feed itself what makes you think it can believe by itself without its parents help?

Let go of what you have been taught in your circle of “Christians”( they just don’t want to admit their Protestantism) brothers and try to think for yourself. They answered all the questions before you asked them and now you are very excited to spread your knowledge but the fact of the matter is, you are not following the teaching of Jesus Christ that was preserved by the Apostles and their successors…thats why any Christian who starts studying history eventually turns catholic. Good luck and I’ll pray for you.
 
Why don’t you folks read what Peter said in Acts 2, I think that would take care of it.

The people heard,
the people were convinced that they had sin in their lives,
they repented of that sin,
they were immersed
their sins were washed away
(hopefully) they lived faithful lives from that point forward as Christians, not catholics!
 
they lived faithful lives from that point forward as Christians, not catholics!
You do realize Catholics are Christians 😉

The First Christians

In Christ
 
I don’t know, are you? Do you follow the Bible and the Bible only, as we are commanded? I don’t think so.
 
With respect…

I didn’t know bible alone was a requirement for being a Christian. It’s not in any bible I’ve read as a requirement protestant or Catholic…

Do I follow Scripture… as best I can…

When I fail, I ask for forgiveness through Christ’s Sacrifice…

My Understanding of what it means to be a Christian is that you follow Christ, believe in him, repent, and be obedient… When you fail in your journey, repent…

This is what every faithful Catholic in a nutshell believes…

Isn’t that what it means to be a Christian?

Follow Christ…

In Christ
 
What do these verses mean?

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Sounds to me that the Bible is all you need, I see no room for tradition or reason in these verses.
 
Quoted by believers:
I don’t think you’re understanding the way a person is baptized with the Holy Spirit. The bible says you must believe. That’s a prerequisite. A baby is incapable of believing.
(I am not an apologist but this is my thinking and please pardon if a similar point has already been made- I read thru most of the posts)

Abraham believed God and was circumcised. He is considered righteous for his belief. He believed as an adult yet babies in the OT were circumcised and heirs to the covenant promises. The Jewish babies in the OT didn’t have Abraham’s faith they were 8 days old. They were circumcised on Abraham’s faith and the faith of their parents. And that is how it is with infants in the new covenant they are baptized on the faith of their parents and sponsors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top