Debating CoC preacher about Infant Baptism

[NotWorthy]

How can sin be removed without faith?

If you took a random un-churched adult off the street, who knows nothing about Christ, and baptized them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, would their sin be removed? I don’t think it would without the repentance of that adult. Specifically, repentance based on understanding God’s grace, Jesus’ sacrifice, and faith in His resurrection.

A baby doesn’t have faith. Can’t have faith. Without faith there is no remission of sin through baptism. The good news is that God’s grace can exist outside of faith, so it doesn’t mean that everyone without faith and without baptism is going to hell. This is precisely what the Catholic church teaches. There is baptism of desire, for example.

I’m not arguing against infant baptism. As I said before, I participated in the baptism of my infant niece, and am her godparent. I just don’t find it to be scripturally necessary, and don’t find any intellectual arguments for its need to be persuasive. If I decided to convert to Catholicism I would accept it as necessary to be part of the church with no qualms. I still would not go around implying that unbaptized infants are doomed to hell.

So my question back to all of you would be, does the Catholic church teach that an unbaptized two-month old infant is more likely to go to hell than a two-year old infant who is baptized in a Catholic church?

BTW, thanks to all who pointed out the difference in the passage in Luke. I had only looked into what Mark says about it.

Why did the paralyzed man in the stretcher have his sins forgiven?

In regards to your question… The Catholic Church does not know what happens to an unbaptized two-month old infant. Period.

 

[NotWorthy]

This might be a good time to bring up once again what the Church teaches on infant baptism:

1253 *Baptism is the sacrament of faith. *But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: “Faith!”

1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. **Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.
**
1255 *For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents’ help is important. So too is the role of the **godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized—child or adult—on the road of Christian life. Their task is a truly ecclesial function (*officium). The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.

The first underlined sentence on 1253 and the last underlined sentence on 1255 adequately reflect what happened to the paralyzed man who’s sins were forgiven.
They went up on the roof and lowered him on the stretcher through the tiles into the middle in front of Jesus. When he saw their faith, he said, "As for you, your sins are forgiven.

 

[Nicea325]

But are you saying then that unbaptized infants are doomed to hell if they die? I don’t think you are saying that, and I don’t think the Catholic church teaches that. I don’t think the church teaches that the unbaptized mentally handicapped are going to hell either.

So then, in terms of the Gospel of Jesus, what purpose does infant baptism serve?

I see it as a traditional ritual that does more for the parents than the baby. I think that infants are going to heaven, baptized or not. You disagree?

So are you suggesting baptism is based on “intelligence” and age of reason? As for traditional ritual? That is incorrect because scripture makes references to Paul baptising households.

 

[PLeeD]

So clarify for me again, you said the AoG teaches that original sin is a separation from God. How are those “born of the flesh” exempt from that separation?

I’d say that they aren’t exempt. No one is exempt. That’s why everyone will die (except those few who have been assumed directly to heaven). But that’s a different issue than being held accountable for our sins. The AoG believes there is an “age of accountability” where a child become intellectually aware of sin, and at that point they become accountable. Children under that age are not accountable for their sin.

BTW, this “age of accountability” is not a set age. It is different for everyone. A mentally handicapped person might never reach the point of accountability if they don’t have the mental capacity to understand it all.

And just wanted to ask again, why does your church baptize?

Because we are instructed to in the bible by Jesus and the Apostles. But IMO there is no scriptural basis to believe that baptism without repentance is efficacious.

So are you suggesting baptism is based on “intelligence” and age of reason? As for traditional ritual? That is incorrect because scripture makes references to Paul baptising households.

No. I’m suggesting that baptism is ineffective without repentance. Repentance requires intellect.

I’d liken it to the Catholic sacrament of confession. A confession is only valid if there is contrition and repentance, right?

I found two references to households being baptized. One each in Acts and 1 Corinthians. But we don’t have any demographic breakdown on either of the households in question. As such, we don’t know whether or not any infants were present and included. Asserting that they were is pure speculation.

I’ll be happy to be persuaded otherwise if there is a scriptural reference that clearly shows an infant being baptized. That doesn’t exist to my knowledge.

Curious, what is the earliest extra-biblical explicit reference to infant baptism?

 

[PLeeD]

Why did the paralyzed man in the stretcher have his sins forgiven?

He was forgiven by Jesus because of “their” faith, which in all likelihood included the faith of the paralyzed man. I’m guessing that the disabled man was complicit in the activity, so it was his faith combined with the others. I don’t know how the faith of those who lowered him plays into it. All I do know is that no baptism occurred, yet his sins were forgiven. So in what possible way does this passage apply to infant baptism?

I’d say that passage about the man on the cot is more clearly reflected in the AoG practice of infant dedication. There is no baptism. The family comes forward with the baby, who is blessed by the pastor, and then prayed over by the congregation.

 

[NotWorthy]

He was forgiven by Jesus because of “their” faith, which in all likelihood included the faith of the paralyzed man. I’m guessing that the disabled man was complicit in the activity, so it was his faith combined with the others. I don’t know how the faith of those who lowered him plays into it. All I do know is that no baptism occurred, yet his sins were forgiven. So in what possible way does this passage apply to infant baptism?

Look at the sentence grammatically. The “their” in the sentence is in direct correlation to “his friends lowering the man down”.

As you say regarding whole households
"PLeeD:

I found two references to households being baptized. One each in Acts and 1 Corinthians. But we don’t have any demographic breakdown on either of the households in question. As such, we don’t know whether or not any infants were present and included. Asserting that they were is pure speculation.

and yet you use the same “pure speculation” to insert the faith of the paralyzed man, for nowhere in the story does Jesus act on the man’s faith, but on “their faith”… the men who lower him down.

I’d say that passage about the man on the cot is more clearly reflected in the AoG practice of infant dedication. There is no baptism. The family comes forward with the baby, who is blessed by the pastor, and then prayed over by the congregation.

This sounds purely symbolic, unless I am wrong. I wouldn’t call the man’s forgiveness of sins as “purely symbolic”. Sure, there is symbolism here in how Israel is paralyzed by its sinning against the Covenant, but that is simply an overlay of the momentous scene where God “gives the authority to forgive sins to men”. Wow!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you Notworthy.

He has researched and found it isn’t until the second century it was certainly practiced, though the Church says it MIGHT have been practiced (whole households). Apparently, might isn’t good enough and second century isn’t early enough

If the Church did not practice infant baptism from the beginning, how did the practice spread so quickly throughout the entire world without apparent objection?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ll be happy to be persuaded otherwise if there is a scriptural reference that clearly shows an infant being baptized. That doesn’t exist to my knowledge.

1.   The Church was given all authority to bind and loose on earth; “all authority” includes the authority to baptize infants. (This ends the discussion, IMO.)

2.   No verse of scripture explicitly forbids the baptism of infants. (ie, Thou shalt not…)

3.   Baptism is called the “circumcision of Christ”. Circumcision was the ritual of initiation by which Jewish parents brought their children into the Old Covenant; baptism is the ritual of initiation by which Christian parents bring their children into the Church.

4.   Numerous passages in the New Testament reveal that whole households were baptized (one after midnight); it is likely that these households included children below the age of reason.

5.   Historical evidence shows that the early Church practiced infant baptism.

Curious, what is the earliest extra-biblical explicit reference to infant baptism?

Infant baptism is a practice of apostolic origin. Catholics do admit that in the third century there was a debate over infant baptism. Cyril records the disagreement: “As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

**You can see that the debate was not about whether or not to baptize infants; the issue was whether to wait until the eighth day to baptize a child as was the practice with circumcision (Lev. 12:2–3).

**As Cyril mentioned, the Church rejected the innovation of Fidus to delay baptism. The apostolic practice had already been firmly passed on, as was recorded by Hippolytus in A.D. 215: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16).

Origin also mentions that in the year 248 infant baptism was nothing new: “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9).

What is significant is that in the midst of numerous affirmations of the practice of infant baptism, one does not find a single voice crying out that the practice was an invention.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)

Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

 

[PLeeD]

Look at the sentence grammatically. The “their” in the sentence is in direct correlation to “his friends lowering the man down”.

Possibly? Yes. Probably? Maybe. However, I don’t think my suggestion that “their” includes the man on the cot is unreasonable. It might well be the case, it just doesn’t fit the way you understand the verse.

The fact still remains, no baptism took place there. So how can you possibly apply it to infant baptism???

As you say regarding whole households and yet you use the same “pure speculation” to insert the faith of the paralyzed man, for nowhere in the story does Jesus act on the man’s faith, but on “their faith”… the men who lower him down.

Fair enough. But I would also point out that “grammatically” there is no reason to assume that the faith of the paralyzed man was not included with “their” faith. I think either position is speculative.

This sounds purely symbolic, unless I am wrong. I wouldn’t call the man’s forgiveness of sins as “purely symbolic”. Sure, there is symbolism here in how Israel is paralyzed by its sinning against the Covenant, but that is simply an overlay of the momentous scene where God “gives the authority to forgive sins to men”. Wow!

I supposed if you call prayer “purely symbolic”, then sure, the AoG baby dedication is symbolic!

Please tell me; how is the practice of AoG baby dedication different from the case of the paralyzed man on the cot? [excepting of course the lack of Jesus’ presence in the flesh]

 

[Randy_Carson]

Possibly? Yes. Probably? Maybe. However, I don’t think my suggestion that “their” includes the man on the cot is unreasonable. It might well be the case, it just doesn’t fit the way you understand the verse.

The fact still remains, no baptism took place there. So how can you possibly apply it to infant baptism???

In Matthew 8:5–13 we read: “As he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him and saying, ‘Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress.’ And he said to him, ‘I will come and heal him.’ But the centurion answered him, ‘Lord I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this.’ and he does it.’ When Jesus heard him he marveled, and said to those who followed him, ‘Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. . . . And to the centurion Jesus said, ‘Go; be it done for you as you have believed.’ And the servant was healed at that very moment.”

Here we see the servant healed based on the faith of the centurion. But not only that, the text also tells us that Jesus “marveled” at the faith of the Roman soldier. Would he not also approve of the faith of parents who have their infants baptized?

 

[PLeeD]

Here we see the servant healed based on the faith of the centurion. But not only that, the text also tells us that Jesus “marveled” at the faith of the Roman soldier. Would he not also approve of the faith of parents who have their infants baptized?

Good point! Yes, Jesus would undoubtedly approve of the faith of the parents who have their infants baptized.

Will he also approve of the faith of the parent who dedicate their infant in an AoG service?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I need help with this.

He doesn’t buy that you can raise someone in the faith (like in OT when baby circumcized and raised as a Jew) because of Heb 8:11. Here’s what he wrote

The first question was based upon the statement in the catechism on page 316, “The proclamation of the word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, which is INSEPARABLE from BAPTISM”. My question is, when one baptizes an infant, is not faith separated from baptism and runs counter to the teachings of Jeremiah, Paul, Peter and Jesus concerning the nature of the New Covenant(Jer 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-12)?

I’m sure you have already received many rejoinders against your supposition; But I can’t read through it all because of the length of the thread, already. My apologies an condolences in advance if I am rehashing anything.


The parent isn’t a “neighbor”; they are the source of teaching for an infant by right over any other teacher. Neighbor refers primarily to people of a different belief; In Egypt, God said “take every man from his neighbor” – by which he meant the unbelievers in the God of Israel. Israel took the gold from their neighbors as part of “teaching” them a lesson about God. They then used the same gold to make an icon of God which was far beneath God’s dignity; a golden calf in the desert – which didn’t teach about God correctly at all. It is precisely this which destroyed (voided) the covenant God originally made with the Israelites; But God again made the covenant with them, however this time is was a Law which contained curses – and it was harsh and temporary; it restricted the priesthood, etc. This intermediate covenant has never been made void – but was was made new in Jesus Christ; fulfilled. All the real animals that were his image in sacrifice, finally became a true icon – a God man; not a mere “God animal.” God is not something beneath man.

The second question, also based upon a statement in the catechism on pg 316, " Where infant baptism has become the form in which this sacrement is usually celebreated, it has become a single act encapsulating the prepatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very NATURE infant baptism requires a POST-BAPTISMAL cateechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its necessary place here". Question: How does one reconcile this statement, " a need for instruction after baptism" with Hebrews 8:11 “you will not go to your neighbor and say know the Lord for all will know me”?

Thanks.
Tezza

I already answered this issue with respect to neighbor; but since neighbor means to us (today) – those who are in the “pew” next to us;

The author of Hebrews is writing in a style that is called eshscatologically (the logic of the last things.) It is impossible that a neighbor NOT to know Christ without NOT being a Christian. Knowledge is experience in this context. A person may have experience without understanding it fully. Fullness, however, is only in heaven itself. Once in heaven, there will be no neighbor to talk to that doesn’t know who Christ is – even the damned will have met him.

Notice, the author of Hebrews is writing about how it should be, not how it is.
There are people who say, let us worship Satan, literally.

Notice, also, the author does not say “you will never go to your neighbor and say…”
Rather both the prophet and the Hewbrew’s writing quoting the prophet, has written a statement that leads you to hope that you will never have to go to your neighbor as the Israelites did, to “teach them a lesson”. Today, you can still met a Jew, who claims to be a Jew, who will tell you “There is no God.”. They are a Jew or an Israelite because they were born to another Jew or Israelite. When Israel was a nation, the religion was also the state. To live in Israel was to obey their laws; it mattered not if a person believed in God or not. In the time of Jesus Christ, the Romans had stripped part of that power from the Jewish government. But at all times – the government, then, teaches about who God really IS. Justice, right relationship; and if the government is corrupt – then the people must go to their neighbor and their brother and teach them the difference.

What the Hebrews author is talking about is already fulfilled, and yet it will not completely be fulfilled until we are in heaven under a holy government. We can already say that the true God has been preached, that there are some people living in some places (Rome?) that don’t need to tell their neighbor anything – because their neighbors are all Catholic. But the truth of Catholicism, again, is manifest in her laws – the code of canon law – and in the example that is set through her leadership. There has never been a Pope who teaches the people to worship “moloch” the God of child sacrifice as the king of Israel had done in the times of Jerimiah. We at least know, now, that there is only one God.

Even the U.S. currency, trumpets the belief of the early Americans – in GOD we trust – not ‘gods’. So even here is may be said that everyone has experienced him at least in a very small way.

But, I would go to my neighbor and say "let us come to know the Lord more deeply. Even in heaven, this can be said – for there will always be hope, and therefore always something unknown about God. Faith hope and love, these three things remain and abide.

Ask your friend if circumcision was worth anything, and why if not did God try to kill Moses for not circumcising his child? Parents are responsible.

Peace be with you.

 

[NotWorthy]

Possibly? Yes. Probably? Maybe. However, I don’t think my suggestion that “their” includes the man on the cot is unreasonable. It might well be the case, it just doesn’t fit the way you understand the verse.

The fact still remains, no baptism took place there. So how can you possibly apply it to infant baptism???

Really?!? Both of them bestow grace and the forgiveness of sins and both came without any petition from the person receiving the grace and the forgiveness.

How are the paralyzed man’s friends any different from two parents bringing their child to God for baptism?

To anyone familiar with the 2000 year history of infant baptism, the similarities are as clear as the nose on my face!

Fair enough. But I would also point out that “grammatically” there is no reason to assume that the faith of the paralyzed man was not included with “their” faith. I think either position is speculative.

Just as the speculation that “entire households” didn’t include children, as would have been the norm in ancient Israel?!?!?

I think the foundation I’m standing on with my “speculation” is more solid than yours, my brother!

I supposed if you call prayer “purely symbolic”, then sure, the AoG baby dedication is symbolic!

That’s all it could be, from what you’ve described. And, just to be clear, I wasn’t being a smart-aleck when I said that (and I don’t think you felt I was being a smark-aleck).

Please tell me; how is the practice of AoG baby dedication different from the case of the paralyzed man on the cot? [excepting of course the lack of Jesus’ presence in the flesh]

Simple. One bestowed Grace and Forgiveness of one’s sins, the other simply looks like a ceremony to appease those who grew up Catholic and have converted to AOG and want the familiarity that they grew up with (ok, that could have been a little smark-aleck! ).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good point! Yes, Jesus would undoubtedly approve of the faith of the parents who have their infants baptized.

Will he also approve of the faith of the parent who dedicate their infant in an AoG service?

Yes and no.

Their faith (such as it is) is a good thing, but they are not baptizing the child in accordance with the ancient teaching of the Church He established upon Peter, the rock.

Fortunately, because they probably act in ignorance, they are not culpable for their error.

 

[NotWorthy]

Has anyone heard the term “scripture interprets scripture”?

This may be a good time to prove how well “Scripture interprets Scripture”, let me ask, “What did Jesus turn the water into during the Wedding at Cana?”

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
So are you suggesting baptism is based on “intelligence” and age of reason? As for traditional ritual? That is incorrect because scripture makes references to Paul baptising households.

No. I’m suggesting that baptism is ineffective without repentance. Repentance requires intellect.

So it does require intelligence. That is the norm Jesus set? Tell me,what happens with those born without the capability of repenting? Mentality retarded children,etc,etc?

I’d liken it to the Catholic sacrament of confession. A confession is only valid if there is contrition and repentance, right?

Yes,but what about those not capable of making an intelligent decision to repent?

I found two references to households being baptized. One each in Acts and 1 Corinthians. But we don’t have any demographic breakdown on either of the households in question. As such, we don’t know whether or not any infants were present and included. Asserting that they were is pure speculation.

First of all,the Bible is a book of faith,not a survey asking one’s gender and age. You like many expect the Bible to be explicit and it is not and was not written in such a fashion. Speculation? Then I guess it is no more speculation then a household only baptizing young children capable of reasoning based on intelligence. Where is there such a case in the NT? To state it is speculation is false,because more than likely there were household with infants,regardlesss if it is not explicitly stated.

I’ll be happy to be persuaded otherwise if there is a scriptural reference that clearly shows an infant being baptized. That doesn’t exist to my knowledge.

And that is your barrier: EXPLICITNESS. And where does the Bible clearly confirm children the “age-of-reason” being baptized?

Curious, what is the earliest extra-biblical explicit reference to infant baptism?

Extra-biblical? Care to show me where the explicit reference to the three distinct persons of the Trinity are defined and explained by any NT writer?

And where is the extra-biblical reference of young children or teens being baptized due only to intelligence?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Why did the paralyzed man in the stretcher have his sins forgiven?

In regards to your question… The Catholic Church does not know what happens to an unbaptized two-month old infant. Period.

uhh, I wouldn’t say that.

If the child is truly (present tense) unbaptized, then it means not even baptism of desire. The church does not know what happens to a child who doesn’t receive the sacrament visibly TO US. Jesus, himself, can baptize with the holy spirit at the moment of death; we don’t know if he did or not. The church will not make a proclamation either way with respect to children other than the holy innocents who died at the hands of Herod. (Who were mostly circumcised, if they were Jewish).

But if the child IS not baptized, by definition – they are in hell. The church does proclaim that knowledge.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I’d say that they aren’t exempt. No one is exempt. That’s why everyone will die (except those few who have been assumed directly to heaven). But that’s a different issue than being held accountable for our sins. The AoG believes there is an “age of accountability” where a child become intellectually aware of sin, and at that point they become accountable. Children under that age are not accountable for their sin.

In Canon law the church talks about the age of reason as well; in the Latin rite it regulates the reception of communion. Today, my youngest boy – (last boy) – made his first communion. Without baptism and receiving the flesh and blood of Christ, no one can be saved. That is a direct teaching of Christ;
So far, what you have said here (if you think as you write) is compatible with Catholic understanding.

BTW, this “age of accountability” is not a set age. It is different for everyone. A mentally handicapped person might never reach the point of accountability if they don’t have the mental capacity to understand it all.

If a child will never reach the age of understanding, the law regulating communion is removed and the child may receive communion.
Regarding the child “understanding” and accountability – Jesus himself teaches explicitly that if he had not come and taught, those who sinned would not be guilty.
But now that he has taught, there is no more excuse.

Because we are instructed to in the bible by Jesus and the Apostles. But IMO there is no scriptural basis to believe that baptism without repentance is efficacious.

Bravo! Your obedience in one matter could lead to obedience in all.
There is no scriptural reason to believe all infants are guilty from the womb. They have an excuse until the time Jesus has been preached to them. And he will be preached to all the baptized (PERIOD).

Regarding the obedience of baptism, it is mandated by the nature of St. Peter’s epistle, which speaks of Christ descending to the dead and preaching to those who had disobeyed since the time of Noah; St. Peter excludes those before Noah’s time. St. Peter is speaking of the first visible sign of Baptism – the flood. Baptism IS necessary, even for the damned – it’s effect is to remove sin; if the man IS sin, he will be removed. The ark, however, saved eight people who were baptized but not killed by the flood.

No. I’m suggesting that baptism is ineffective without repentance. Repentance requires intellect.

That is correct for one who mocks God at the time of baptism, for the moment the baptism is over – the sinner still mocks God. But it is NOT correct that baptism is ineffective without repentance; for a child who HAS done no wrong on their own – is saved by baptism. Noah, and his children were saved – and a pregnant wife would still have been saved. In the sea, (Read sea), the waters parted to allow the lives of Israelites to be spared. Even children in the womb of pregnant wives. This is spectacular, when you think of Moses who was sent into the water by Pharaoh to be killed – but the water saved Moses through an ARK. Yet that same water, now in the sea, killed Pharaoh and all his men. What you are failing to see about baptism is that the word means entering death. and only if it has been appointed that one die at the whim of God – is there a GUARANTEE of repayment.

What you are failing to see is that baptism is a visible sign of God – it is an INTRODUCTION to Jesus Christ, THE resurrection. Anyone who hides the sign of God, or distorts it as Pharaoh did – will eventually DIE into an ETERNAL death unless they reverse their ways and choose to enter baptism WITH Christ.
To not baptize a child is to put God’s mercy to the test by the parent and priest and anyone else who witheld baptism for the child. The very denial of baptism – (or circumcision) is tantamount to treason and abortion. It can only end in death if it is held onto while the water rises above ones neck – and then fills the lungs as the wrong kind of air.

I’ll be happy to be persuaded otherwise if there is a scriptural reference that clearly shows an infant being baptized. That doesn’t exist to my knowledge.

Moses did not enter the ark of his own will. It was his sister who remembering the SIGN of Noah, placed moses in the Ark. That’s how Moses was saved. It’s a baptismal sign of one kind – as St. Peter mentions with regard to Noah.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Exodu 10:10 And Pharao answered: So be the Lord with you, as I shall let you** and your children** go: who can doubt but that you intend some great evil?

*doesn’t exclude infants or even those in the womb.

1King 9:6 ** But if you and your children, revolting**, shall turn away from following me, and will not keep my commandments, and my ceremonies, which I have set before you, but will go and worship strange gods, and adore them:

Doesn’t exclude infants or children in the womb either – they may die.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off,** whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. **

And by calling, it means he “names” you as the father names the child. Pentultimately God the father will call you by name.

The parents, or those acting as parents (the church), sanctify the child while they live and the parents bear the child’s guilt to some degree (mercy allows forgiveness). This sanctification, however, can only exist while there is a bond between the parent and child. This is EXPLICITLY taught in scripture in many ways.

Merely being in the womb of one who is sanctified, cleanses the one in the womb during that TIME; Once the child is separated, however, they must speak for themselves giving glory to God as they should have been doing in the womb – but could not. Even if the only word they can speak is fear or terror, it will be enough: Their lungs being freed of water.

I know my writing is difficult to understand; but I have no choice with regard to scripture. God has taught in many hidden ways to children, and the point of hiding something – is so that it may be safely found or else one buries something to stay out of sight forever. God purpose is always the former, only we and the devil do the latter. Even the damned will be a sight in the end.