Debating CoC preacher about Infant Baptism

[TobyLue]

It does not make sense to me when some want the Bible to explicitly state “baptize infants” and not accept where it says “households” would definitely include children. By that criteria when Jesus says "Let the little children alone, and do not stop them from coming to me; ** for it is to such as these that the kingdom of Heaven belongs**" are we to conclude that Jesus is saying that no adults belong in the kingdom of heaven? After all he does not mention adults here, he just says infants.

We know that Jesus taught the apostles, and the apostles taught their disciples exactly what Jesus taught them. We have from Origen “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]).

I guess those dumb apostles didn’t understand Jesus. They must have been daydreaming and paid no attention to Jesus, and just made it up to baptize infants. If so then what guarantee do we have that the Bible is Truth. They could have gotten Jesus’ teachings all wrong. Notice also what Origin starts out with…“THE CHURCH”, and not the churches. Hmmmm I wonder what “Church” that was? The AOG, the Methodist, the Baptist, the CoC. Which Church did Jesus give authority to?

 

[TobyLue]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

But this does not say “scripture alone”. That is why Sola Scriptura is a man made tradition. And don’t get me started as to who “the man of God” is. It’s not your everyday Joe Blow BTW

 

[NotWorthy]

The bolded part is not what I believe. That’s why I have no problem with the practice of infant baptism. I do believe that whatever is taught as “necessary and required” to believe should be explicit. That idea is not without scriptural basis:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
I’m not closed to the idea of coming around to a more Catholic or Orthodox view on the matter, but there are challenges. If I ever do, I will have to be able to be 100% sincere about it.

Since when does “profitable” mean “necessary and required”. I wasn’t aware that these words/phrases are interchangeable.

 

[Tiberius1701]

All I mean is that the word “household” is less specific than if the text said “adults, children, and infants” were baptized.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to refer to the word “households” to support belief in infant baptism. Even so, can you honestly not see that it’s not so cut and dried as to leave no doubt based only on scripture?

You have to understand that after having a particular lifelong view of the use and meaning of baptism, and seeking to validate all spiritual beliefs based on scripture, that it is a hurdle to accept something new that I don’t find to be implicit in scripture.

All of the descriptions of metaphors and allegories, plus ECF references to it, allow me to understand why you believe it. But, the lack of specific instruction to baptize infants IMO calls into question the both the necessity and efficacy of the practice.

I’m not trying to be contrary for the sake of argument. It’s a question of personal conscience and sincerity. I am sincere in the beliefs I have, and I seek to keep that sincerity central to everything I do. It’s difficult to assent to something in which I don’t have sincere belief, because just going through the motions makes me feel like a hypocrite.

PLeeD, First, let me say that I understand the reticence - I was a Protestant for 27 years myself - but if you want to be able to assent with a sincere conscience, you need to internalize the fact it is not the insistence on infant baptism that is “something new”. The actual innovation, historically speaking, is the both the rejection of infant baptism and, more importantly, the insistance on “find[ing each doctrine/practice] to be implicit in scripture.”

For 1500 years, the only people who insisted that everything they believed had “to be implicit in scripture” were heretics such as the Gnostics who denied Jesus’ humanity and subsequently wrote Gnostic gospels where Jesus floated above the ground like a ghost in order to help their sola Scriptura case (lucky for them, the Church hadn’t defined which books belonged to the Bible yet, so they had an easier time telling under-catechized people that their gospels were authentic). The modern, 500-year old insistence on sola Scriptura, if you’ll remember, was instituted most especially by Martin Luther who, besides constantly contradicting himself - one day saying that people must remain within the Catholic Church even if it is riddled with scandal, the next saying that there was nothing good left within the Church and that therefore it should be discarded altogether in favor of Lutheranism - did the opposite, he removed books from the Bible that included, not only implicit, but in some cases explicit references to things he didn’t want to believe that were just as constant and just as unimpeachably apostolic as is infant baptism, like praying for the dead who are being purified in Purgatory (e.g. “In doing this, praying and offering sacrifices for the dead,] he, Judas Maccabeus,] acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.” -2 Macc. 12:43–45).

So, again, the problem is not that it’s not clear enough in Scripture. If you have eyes to see and ears to hear, you will find that Scripture truly is impressively clear that Baptism was meant to be practiced exactly as the Catholic Church teaches us to practice it. And the problem is not that infant baptism is anything new or innovative. The problem is merely that it is new to you and that you did not receive the apostolic teaching from the beginning, not all of it anyway. When you were taught that everything you believe as a Christian must be “[found] to be implicit in scripture,” you were taught something that was directly contrary to Scripture. (Plus, you seem to be forgetting that “implicit” doesn’t mean, “clear, obvious, and direct.” It actually means, “implied or suggested” which infant baptism, as we’ve shown again and again, certainly is. No, it’s not explicit - there’s no verse that says, “thou shalt baptize infants” - but it definitely is implied.) Once you honestly look at whether sola Scriptura is scriptural (at which point you’ll find that it isn’t), you’ll see that you don’t need to view everything through that new, innovative house-of-mirrors of a principle.

 

[pablope]

The bolded part is not what I believe. That’s why I have no problem with the practice of infant baptism. I do believe that whatever is taught as “necessary and required” to believe should be explicit. That idea is not without scriptural basis:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
*All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
*

I’m not closed to the idea of coming around to a more Catholic or Orthodox view on the matter, but there are challenges. If I ever do, I will have to be able to be 100% sincere about it.

Actually, Pleed, you are committing a very common protestand practice of leaving out verse 14:

2 Timothy 3:14-17

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15And 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.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works

Verse 14 speaks of oral teaching, oral traditions, and knowing from whom you got instruction (a direct line from the Apostles.)

Taken wholly, the Oral and the Written contribute to making one wise, " thoroughly furnished unto all good works" and not just from Scripture, for as John said, not everything is written down.

 

[Nicea325]

Sorry, but the verse clearly says that Philip tells the eunuch that he needs to believe before being baptized. That is the basis for the principle of the age of accountability.

Okay,but the verse was NOT written in defense of the “age of accountability.” That is you alone injecting your own subjective beliefs. Secondly, I already told you the first converts were adults,since no cradle Christians existed. Third, it seems you believe “Age of accountability” is the norm required for baptism.

You can reject that reasoning if you want, but your opinion on the matter doesn’t make the explanation unreasonable.

I beg your pardon? My opinion? It is not opinion at all,it is a fact that specific verse was not written in defense of your ‘accountability’ belief.

I find this explanation far more reasonable than clinging to the nebulous word “households” to justify belief in a tradition.

Nebulous? Really? Are the doctrines of the Trinity an Incarnation nebulous too? Oh that is right,those doctrines were also supported via TRADITION…study the doctrines. By the way,the onus is on you to confirm that Jewish culture did not consider infants as part of the household. Not ONE non-Catholic I know has ever shown an iota of evidence of such a belief by Jews.

It’s also vastly more reasonable than citing pre-pentecost examples of healing or forgiveness of sins that didn’t even include baptism to explain infant baptism.

Of course…reason. How very secular. Apparently you have the slighest clue about doctrinal development and most non-Catholic I encounter never do.

In the end, I have no idea whether the Catholic church has the full truth on this matter or not.

Then I guess Jesus lied about guiding His church into the fullness of Truth?

I have no quarrel with the practice; as I mentioned that I am godparent to my niece who was baptized as an infant. What I do know is that I find the scriptural justifications for infant baptism extremely weak.

And the “age of accountability” is even much weaker.

I’d be more satisfied with the answer that simply says “it’s the teaching of the church, so Catholics do it”. The attempts that I’ve seen so far to justify it based on scripture are unconvincing.

And that is the Protestant flaw: Scripture-alone. Jesus founded His Church,which is the pillar and foundation of Truth,not the Bible-Only. Where does Jesus teach everything must said in scripture explicitly in order to be true? Funny how I have yet to read the Bible-Only in the Bible?

 

[Sonny69]

Infant baptism is not a biblical doctrine found in Scripture; for one reason every use of the word explicitly means that the object is fully immersed into water. With infant baptism, the opposite of the definition is performed. However; it is not a doctrine that is really worth arguing about because it has no effect in salvation; only the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is given by Christ. (Matt. 3:11 & Luke 3:16) If it did it would be very clearly written by any of the writers or the Holy Spirit, the author of Scripture.

Therefore if your conscience says it is okay, then baptize your infant and if your conscience say it is not okay, then do not. For throughout church history both were argued and some practiced it while others did not.

I do not recommend following the definition of baptism with an infant since you may hurt the infant by fully immersing them in water.

I believe the Roman Catholic Church teaches that grace is imparted upon the infant, which I cannot find in Scripture; so if what i understand is true, then your tradition is the source of the doctrine.

 

[NotWorthy]

Infant baptism is not a biblical doctrine found in Scripture; for one reason every use of the word explicitly means that the object is fully immersed into water.

I’ve got to throw a flag on this statement. Where do you get that every use of the word for baptism clearly means immersion.

If I’m correct, the Levitical priests had to sprinkle water on their hands for purification rites, and the word used is batptizmo, or some derivative of it (I’m sorry, but I don’t have my notes, so I’m going of a somewhat faulty memory).

 

[Sonny69]

I’ve got to throw a flag on this statement. Where do you get that every use of the word for baptism clearly means immersion.

If I’m correct, the Levitical priests had to sprinkle water on their hands for purification rites, and the word used is batptizmo, or some derivative of it (I’m sorry, but I don’t have my notes, so I’m going of a somewhat faulty memory).

Without even looking it up it would not pertain to the discussion since that purification was a man-made addition to the law, which Jesus and his Apostles totally ignored, which made the Pharasees upset.

The word for sprinkled in the NT is rhantizō and is used only 5 times; 4 times in Hebrews and one time in Mark and a derivitive used 1 time in 1 Peter.

What you are specifically referring to is Mark 7:1-23 and there a word for washing is baptismos, which is derivitive of baptizō. Again with the washing of hands in biblical time would be a placing of the hands into a pot of water; therefore the object, the hands, would be immersed.

The Talmud, i believe, speaks of a ceremonial “washing”, which measured 1.5 egg shells worth of water onto the fingers till it went to the wrist. this would have been performed after a genuine washing of the hands as noted above. The Bible does not speak of this. Hope you find that useful. Again, if your conscience tells you to do it, then do it - do not violate your conscience it is a gift of God.

 

[NotWorthy]

Without even looking it up it would not pertain to the discussion since that purification was a man-made addition to the law, which Jesus and his Apostles totally ignored, which made the Pharasees upset.

but it used the word in question, baptizo, eh? Hence, it is relevant.

The word for sprinkled in the NT is rhantizō and is used only 5 times; 4 times in Hebrews and one time in Mark and a derivitive used 1 time in 1 Peter.

What you are specifically referring to is Mark 7:1-23 and there a word for washing is baptismos, which is derivitive of baptizō. Again with the washing of hands in biblical time would be a placing of the hands into a pot of water; therefore the object, the hands, would be immersed.

The Talmud, i believe, speaks of a ceremonial “washing”, which measured 1.5 egg shells worth of water onto the fingers till it went to the wrist. this would have been performed after a genuine washing of the hands as noted above. The Bible does not speak of this. Hope you find that useful. Again, if your conscience tells you to do it, then do it - do not violate your conscience it is a gift of God.

I found this on the Catholic Answers Site. catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp I’ll quote the relevant words:

Although the New Testament contains no explicit instructions on how physically to administer the water of baptism, Fundamentalists argue that the Greek word baptizo found in the New Testament means “to immerse.” They also maintain that only immersion reflects the symbolic significance of being “buried” and “raised” with Christ (see Romans 6:3-4).

It is true that *baptizo *often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, "went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is *baptizo

] seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).

But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash baptizo] before dinner.” They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative “baptism” is a sort of “immersion”; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, “I have a baptism baptisma] to be baptized baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!” (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be “immersed” in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples “not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’” Did this mean they would be “immersed” in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include “pouring.”

 

[Tiberius1701]

Without even looking it up it would not pertain to the discussion since that purification was a man-made addition to the law, which Jesus and his Apostles totally ignored, which made the Pharasees upset.

Really? Then why did Jesus say, “The scribes and Pharasees sit on Moses’ seat, therefore do whatever they tell you” (Matt 23:2-3)? That doesn’t sound like totally ignoring them to me…

 

[Bussi]

What is the generally accepted “age of reason” for children IAW Church teaching/thinking?
My understanding is that it is about the age of seven years. If infant baptism is not performed then the child will have live for seven years in a sinful state (Original Sin) through no fault of his/her own. Can you think of any logical reason why this sin should remain on their soul for seven years? In our secular society, parents make decisions, legal and otherwise, related to a child’s welfare up until 18 years old.

My personal experience was that I was baptized as an infant, began preparation at about 7 for reception of Sacrament of First Holy Communion a few months before I was 9, and then preparation for the reception of the Sacrament of Confirmation at about 12, which, in effect, is a personal acceptance and in a way completion of My Sacrament of Baptism and becoming a full fledged member of the Christ’s Church…

Isn’t it interesting how Jesus was presented in the Temple as an infant, (4th Joyful Mystery of the Rosary) and then being found in the Temple at age 12 (5th Joyful Mystery/Bar Mitzvah?) I understand that at a Bar Mitzvah that the “boy” will say, today I am a man." ( Jesus demonstrated knowledge and understanding beyond His years, so was this in a sense Jesus’ “Bar Mitzvah”? The training preparation is quite rigorous.

 

[Tiberius1701]

What is the generally accepted “age of reason” for children IAW Church teaching/thinking?
My understanding is that it is about the age of seven years. If infant baptism is not performed then the child will have live for seven years in a sinful state (Original Sin) through no fault of his/her own. Can you think of any logical reason why this sin should remain on their soul for seven years? In our secular society, parents make decisions, legal and otherwise, related to a child’s welfare up until 18 years old.

My personal experience was that I was baptized as an infant, began preparation at about 7 for reception of Sacrament of First Holy Communion a few months before I was 9, and then preparation for the reception of the Sacrament of Confirmation at about 12, which, in effect, is a personal acceptance and in a way completion of My Sacrament of Baptism and becoming a full fledged member of the Christ’s Church…

Isn’t it interesting how Jesus was presented in the Temple as an infant, (4th Joyful Mystery of the Rosary) and then being found in the Temple at age 12 (5th Joyful Mystery/Bar Mitzvah?) I understand that at a Bar Mitzvah that the “boy” will say, today I am a man." ( Jesus demonstrated knowledge and understanding beyond His years, so was this in a sense Jesus’ “Bar Mitzvah”? The training preparation is quite rigorous.

That’s a very cool connection. Thanks for pointing it out, Bussi!

 

[Nicea325]

Infant baptism is not a biblical doctrine found in Scripture; for one reason every use of the word explicitly means that the object is fully immersed into water.

The above statement is completely false. It is implicit,not explicit. Not every doctrine is explicitly taught in Scripture: Trinity. However, immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it means washing up. Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, *"[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." *

They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs). Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed, and may not wish to defer baptism until their recovery (for example, if they are to undergo further procedures).

Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos.

With infant baptism, the opposite of the definition is performed. However; it is not a doctrine that is really worth arguing about because it has no effect in salvation; only the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is given by Christ. (Matt. 3:11 & Luke 3:16) If it did it would be very clearly written by any of the writers or the Holy Spirit, the author of Scripture.

WRONG! “The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]”

“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” (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through “baptism of blood,” martyrdom for Christ, or through “baptism of desire”, that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

I do not recommend following the definition of baptism with an infant since you may hurt the infant by fully immersing them in water.

So I guess we should not give an infant a bath either?

 

[NotWorthy]

Regarding total immersion, what did the Lord prophecy through Ezekiel 36:25-27?

I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.*** I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts.****** I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees.***

 

[Sonny69]

but it used the word in question, baptizo, eh? Hence, it is relevant.
The relevance is in keeping with all of Scriptures, which is the object, the hands, being immersed into water. That is certainly how baptism is portrayed in Scripture.

I found this on the Catholic Answers Site. catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp I’ll quote the relevant words:

The quote supports exactly what I stated; they generalize by using the phrase “washing up”, which makes it sound like they had Delta faucets, which they did not…they immersed their hands into the water using pots or a river or stream or other source of “flowing” water.

Reminds me of the man Jesus healed at Solomon’s portico; the first into the water was healed when the waters were stirred.

 

[Sonny69]

Really? Then why did Jesus say, “The scribes and Pharasees sit on Moses’ seat, therefore do whatever they tell you” (Matt 23:2-3)? That doesn’t sound like totally ignoring them to me…

If you read Mark 7:1 - 23, then it would be clear to you. This is the passage in question.

On Matthew 23:2-3 Coffman writes the following and I agree: "Christ recognized that the scribes and Pharisees were successors to some of the dignity and authority of Moses, not in the sense of really possessing such authority, but in the sense of being responsible for teaching Moses’ word and faithfully interpreting it to the people. They were the custodial heirs and terminal beneficiaries of the system which God gave through his servant Moses.

The Pharisees did not practice what they taught (verse 3), but their failure was no excuse for disobedience by those who knew God’s will. The authority of God’s word does not derive from the righteous life of the teacher but from the prior authority of God himself; although, of course, the righteous life of the teacher is always a strong encouragement to obedience. The evil and inconsistent life of the scribes and Pharisees was a strong deterrent to the acceptance of God’s will in that day; and similar evil on the part of Christian teachers in all ages has the same hindering results."

 

[Tiberius1701]

The quote supports exactly what I stated; they generalize by using the phrase “washing up”, which makes it sound like they had Delta faucets, which they did not…they immersed their hands into the water using pots or a river or stream or other source of “flowing” water.

Reminds me of the man Jesus healed at Solomon’s portico; the first into the water was healed when the waters were stirred.

So what you’re saying is that, so long as you can find some way, in your own mind, to twist the obvious statement that it’s not total immersion, which is what you demand for baptism, into some form of, “well, at least one atom of the human in question is totally immersed,” then you can successfully “refute” the constant teaching and practice of the Christian Church from before the Bible, which that Church wrote, even existed so that the new innovation of those who broke away from that original Church at least 500 years ago, if not more recently? Fair enough. You win. We’re definitely wrong to use the Bible that our Church wrote to support what our Church has always done simply because you, who are taking traditions from outside the Bible-Writing Church, tell us what the Bible “really” means. I guess I’ll be leaving the Catholic Church now in favor of this new wisdom… (Well, maybe not right now, since, first I should probably be responsible and mop up all this dripping sarcasm I’ve just spilled all over the floor. )

 

[Sonny69]

The above statement is completely false. It is implicit,not explicit. Not every doctrine is explicitly taught in Scripture: Trinity. However, immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it means washing up. Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, *"[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." *

Since you made the assertion, then the burden is on you to show where the word or its derivitive is not in the form of immersion, such as in washing of hands, which in that day would have been using a pot of water or some other water source such as a stream or river or man-made pool. Good luck because you will not find it because Scripture is not only true it is consistently so. If you read Scripture and can’t see the God-head or Trrinitarian nature of God, then be afraid.

Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs). Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed, and may not wish to defer baptism until their recovery (for example, if they are to undergo further procedures).

Good thing for these folks that water baptism is not necessary for salvation; I’m quite certain God reads the heart and salvation is so difficult that only God can do it-ever considered that; let me say it again. Salvation is so difficult that only God can perform it.

“The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]”

This baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit and w/out the Holy Spirit no one will be saved; it is known as “regeneration” and regeneration never ocurrs apart from hearing the gospel; we call it “being born from above or born again”. Born of the spirit is what I am referring to as where you are referring to “water”, but a good reading of Ezekiel 36:22 onward will teach you the OT doctrine of regeneration and notice who does it and inspite of the sinner(s). God is immutable, sovereign and Holy.

“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” (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Notice "not as the removal of dirt (Peter goes out of his way to make sure the reader doesn’t make your mistake), which refers to water baptism, here is another example of baptism by the Holy Spirit and again not apart from faith in God. The water in that passage represents “judgment”.

Acts2:38 is the ordinance Christ established and imparts nothing concerning salvation. John 3, Christian baptism hadn’t begun since Christ was not yet glorified nor had the day of Pentecost started-ever stopped to think of these things?

Romans 6:3-4 speaks again of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which John the Baptist spoke of in Matthew 3:11 & Luke 3:16.

Col. 2:11-12 stresses my earlier point that regeneration by the Holy Spirit given by Christ and not apart from the hearing of the gospel. Some Bible reading and exegesis is in order here; this is not a difficult subject, only made difficult by some and as I originally said; if you believe infants should be baptized, then by all means go for it and do not violate your conscience, but don’t push doctrines onto Scripture because of your tradition; keep it as your tradition. You cannot find one example of an infant being baptized in any manner and household - doesn’t include babies in the context of water baptism; otherwise Scripture would have a specific example of baby being baptized and it does not for good reason in my opinion. But tradition is fine.

 

[Tiberius1701]

I believe the Roman Catholic Church teaches that grace is imparted upon the infant, which I cannot find in Scripture; so if what i understand is true, then your tradition is the source of the doctrine.

Well, to be fair, you should first acknowledge that our tradition is also the source of your Bible, so…

If you read Mark 7:1 - 23, then it would be clear to you. This is the passage in question.

I have read Mark 7 both many times before and just now, and it’s just as clear to me now as it was when I quoted Matthew: in both cases, Jesus accepts, and calls the Jews of His day to accept, the legitimate teachings and traditions of the scribes and Pharisees, and to reject those teachings where the Pharisees contradicted themselves. This is no different, today, from accepting the authoritative, infallible teachings of the Pope and the bishops, and rejecting any homilies or personal suggestions of priests or bishops that contract the constant teachings of the Catholic Church. This in no way affects the validity of infant baptism which, as we keep reminding you, is neither an innovation, nor a contradiction of the Scriptures (a significant portion of which the Catholic Church wrote), nor a contradiction of anything ever taught by the Magisterium throughout the near 2000-year history of the Church. So, again, I question the point of bringing it up; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread.