Debating CoC preacher about Infant Baptism

[stevekehl]

Hhmmm? Then I am curious why Joseph & Mary did not let Jesus decide to get circumcised? Last time I checked he was 8 days old,not 30 years old. Time to brush up on the OT my friend. Nothing false about presenting or taking one’s child to God on behalf of mom and dad.

Circumcision did not secure salvation for the Jews, it was signifying the covenant with God in the flesh, like many churches have a dedication ceremony for infants. Being part of the Jewish nation did not ensure salvation, which the RCC says of baptism. John the Baptist said God could make stones into sons of Abraham. Many people think that Jews were saved by obeying the law of Moses, circumcision being the first obedience of that law. However, Jews were saved by the same thing we are, faith. Jews obeyed the law out of devotion to God, much like our works are inspired and motivated out of thankfullness and devotion to Christ.
Would Paul write these things after baptizing infants?
Romans 10:13 All who call out to the Lord will be saved. 14 How can people have faith in the Lord and ask him to save them, if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear, unless someone tells them? 15 And how can anyone tell them without being sent by the Lord? The Scriptures say it is a beautiful sight to see even the feet of someone coming to preach the good news. 16 Yet not everyone has believed the message. For example, the prophet Isaiah asked, “Lord, has anyone believed what we said?” 17 No one can have faith without hearing the message about Christ.
How can an infant call out to God, hear a message, understand the message, and have faith?

Peter baptized Cornelius’ household, that is true, but who was baptized?
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision (Jews) that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?
Can we honestly expect that newborns would be speaking in tongues? Those on whom the Spirit fell were baptized, not the household.
I keep getting told that Scriptures aren’t the only authoritative writing, so I found another source for my opinion, The Didache

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
So the baptized should fast for two or three days prior, doubt that was written with an infant in mind (ever hear the racket a little kid makes when one meal is late?). Also, pouring over the head was a last resort, when enough water for immersion wasn’t available.

 

[stevekehl]

In general, most non-Catholic denominations do not teach/recognize the full range of Sacraments that the Catholic Church does, especially the Sacrament of Confirmation. Yes, Catholic theology does and has taught infant baptism from the time of St. Paul. However, the Sacrament of Confirmation “completes” a person’s infant Baptism, (a choice made by the parent(s) who infant obviously has not reach the age of reason), because the teen-ager/adult is required to make a personal choice to be confirmed, thereby becoming a full fledged member of the Church.

If the baptism of an infant is incomplete, why bother? Why not wait until the personal choice to be confirmed is made, then baptize?

 

[pablope]

When I say he didn’t teach orally I meant that it is only logical that he carried written documents and used them to teach from. Like I mentioned in 2 Timothy 4 he asks Timothy to bring books and parchments when he visits.

Steve…the context of 2Tim4 is Paul is in prison about to be executed. He is asking Timothy to "come to me soon (v9)…and to bring with him parchment (writing material…to write a letter, perhaps) and books…though no indication of what these are, it is most likely Paul’s copies of OT books.

Traditions don’t really concern me, my problem is the church’s teaching that a person must agree with everything the church teaches

 

[jcrichton]

If the baptism of an infant is incomplete, why bother? Why not wait until the personal choice to be confirmed is made, then baptize?

…for the same reason that you do not wait for a child to be 30 years old before you teach him/her the alphabet!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[NotWorthy]

When I say he didn’t teach orally I meant that it is only logical that he carried written documents and used them to teach from. Like I mentioned in 2 Timothy 4 he asks Timothy to bring books and parchments when he visits. Traditions don’t really concern me, my problem is the church’s teaching that a person must agree with everything the church teaches in order to be in a state of grace and go to heaven after death. I think that God would include any information we would need for eternal salvation in Scripture since He desires all to be reconciled to Him.

It’s less the believing and more the teaching that the Church is wrong that gets one in trouble.

But Steve, to your point, did Christ found a Church? Shouldn’t one follow the Church if Christ is Her founder?

It blows me away that so many people have walked away from this basic principle.

 

[NotWorthy]

If the baptism of an infant is incomplete, why bother? Why not wait until the personal choice to be confirmed is made, then baptize?

If Baptism is beneficial for the soul then why wait?

 

[Jon_Leveille]

Getting back to original post- look to Acts where it says Peter Baptised households. Would that include infants and toddlers- not according to the baptists in our area.They needed to be able to choose for themselves. So which is it -the parent decides(Old Testament) or the child decides((Protestant).

Every Person, must decide to accept Christ for themselves. Infant Baptism does not save.
Households could include servants and slaves as well as family members, but it never specifically says that he baptised every single person in the household.

 

[Jon_Leveille]

If Baptism is beneficial for the soul then why wait?

Dedication, and Baptism, are two different things, Baptism, is a public announcement of your being saved, and Dedication, is an act carried out by the parents, dedicating their child to the Lord.

 

[NotWorthy]

Dedication, and Baptism, are two different things, Baptism, is a public announcement of your being saved, and Dedication, is an act carried out by the parents, dedicating their child to the Lord.

Baptism is much more than a “public announcement of your being saved”. Where is that in Scripture anyway.

Baptism is a washing away of Original Sin and a cleansing of your soul of your sins. It is beneficial to your soul. The Dedication sounds like its merely to make people feel good.

Your Salvation, however in either case, is still in yours and God’s hands.

 

[NotWorthy]

Every Person, must decide to accept Christ for themselves. Infant Baptism does not save.
Households could include servants and slaves as well as family members, but it never specifically says that he baptised every single person in the household.

Hmmmm, doesn’t the text say his entire household?

31 ****** And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved."*** 32 ****** So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house.****** 33 ****** He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once**.

*And doesn’t Peter tell us that Baptism ***“saves you now”?

---

 

[Nicea325]

Every Person, must decide to accept Christ for themselves. Infant Baptism does not save.
Households could include servants and slaves as well as family members, but it never specifically says that he baptised every single person in the household.

Wrong! Burden of proof is on you to show us that first centrury Jews did not INCLUDE infants as part of the household. Good luck!

And the Scripture also does state specifically only people at the “age of reason” either-does it? And baptism as an adult guarantees salvation?

 

[stevekehl]

…for the same reason that you do not wait for a child to be 30 years old before you teach him/her the alphabet!

Maran atha!

Angel

Jesus had to wait for John to begin his ministry and prepare the way before getting baptised (Ithink this is the analogy you are making). Besides, Jesus being baptised before John’s ministry would have had no significance. The Jews had a ceremonial cleansing ritual in what was called a mikvah (I’m not sure that is spelled right). Men who could afford it had a bath with continual running water, usually a trickle, where they would immerse themselves completely. However, this was only for men and usually affluent men. John’s baptism was for everyone, male and female, rich and poor, outcast and observant. Mirrorring those who Jesus would call to salvation.

 

[stevekehl]

Steve…the context of 2Tim4 is Paul is in prison about to be executed. He is asking Timothy to "come to me soon (v9)…and to bring with him parchment (writing material…to write a letter, perhaps) and books…though no indication of what these are, it is most likely Paul’s copies of OT books.

The parchments were for writing, but was Paul the only prolific writer of the time. John has 4 writings in Scripture, Peter 2 and dictated a gospel to Mark, is it impossible to imagine these men were writing all along? Is it more likely that Peter only wrote 2 letters in the 35 years after Christ died, or more likely that he wrote many? I think they did write often and the early church had numerous letters for instruction and teaching, possibly the basis for traditions, but also a rudimentary scriptural base. For whatever reason these writings were lost to time, war, persecution, natural disaster, or some were rejected when the New Testament was compiled. This is one of the things I want to talk to God about when my time is up (if such desires carry over to eternity). I would like to see all the letters and writings of the apostles, like the letter to Laodicea that Paul references in Colossians 4. I think you are wrong about the books, Paul refered to the OT as Scripture or to the prophet or writer he was quoting. I don’t think he would have called Scripture books. You are right that we don’t know what they are.

Why would you want to become a member of a church if you do not agree with all that it teaches? Did Jesus say you can pick and choose what you want to believe in?

I’m talking about things like Mary’s bodily translation to heaven or communion must be taken weekly. If someone wants to believe these things that’s fine, but they have no bearing on salvation. Our church takes communion weekly based on Acts 20:7. However Jesus said remember me when you do this, so some people think that communion every week will result in it beoming just another ritual. I have a friend who is a Messianic Jew and they only take communion during Passover. Since this has no bearing on salvation, people can believe and practice what they want about the frequency of communion.

In the CC, the final judgement is left to God alone.

Then how do you know who is in Purgatory, if anyone?

Well, you are assuming that God’s word is limited to the Scripture. It is not, it is contained in both Scripture (written) and Sacred Tradition.
God left it in both, not just one.

I’ve been on a couple threads like this ad nauseum. We’ll just have to disagree.
Enjoy the Fourth Talk to you soon.

 

[stevekehl]

It’s less the believing and more the teaching that the Church is wrong that gets one in trouble.

But Steve, to your point, did Christ found a Church? Shouldn’t one follow the Church if Christ is Her founder?

It blows me away that so many people have walked away from this basic principle.

The literal word Jesus spoke when talking about church was ekklesia, which means assembly or community. My literal translation of the Bible doesn’t use the word church, but assembly. Of course, using the word church would be the obvious translation into modern English. However, no where in the NT is the word church capitalized I searched several translations including the ASV), being lower case it would refer to a body of believers, which is what I believe the church is, everyone who has accepted Christ as Lord. We could get into baptism (personally I believe it is required), but that is another thread.
Stay inside this holiday weekend, I’ll bet west Texas is HOT this time of year (I’m guessing, Sour Lake sounds like a desert name). Enjoy the Fourth.

 

[pablope]

The parchments were for writing, but was Paul the only prolific writer of the time. John has 4 writings in Scripture, Peter 2 and dictated a gospel to Mark, is it impossible to imagine these men were writing all along?

Paul was the only known prolific writer. And he wrote the epistles only after he had preached and established churches. I do not know how many, but I think at least half were written when he was in prison in Rome. He wrote because he could not be physically present. That is why he asked Timothy to bring parchment, he was about to die, and bring his books. Nowhere in his other epistles does he ask for this.

I think you are trying to stretch the verse.

And no, Peter did not dictate the gospel. From what I can gather, Peter checked the outline, but Mark mainly wrote from memory, and Peter was crucified before Mark could finish it.

Is it more likely that Peter only wrote 2 letters in the 35 years after Christ died, or more likely that he wrote many?

 

[NotWorthy]

The literal word Jesus spoke when talking about church was ekklesia, which means assembly or community. My literal translation of the Bible doesn’t use the word church, but assembly. Of course, using the word church would be the obvious translation into modern English. However, no where in the NT is the word church capitalized I searched several translations including the ASV), being lower case it would refer to a body of believers, which is what I believe the church is, everyone who has accepted Christ as Lord. We could get into baptism (personally I believe it is required), but that is another thread.
Stay inside this holiday weekend, I’ll bet west Texas is HOT this time of year (I’m guessing, Sour Lake sounds like a desert name). Enjoy the Fourth.

Thanks for the kinds words on the heat, but no, Sour Lake is in the Southeast corner of Texas. Which only means its hot AND muggy.

The thing I would counter with on your definition of “Church” is in Matthew 18, when dealing with a disagreement, “take it to the Church”. Does that mean it should be taken to a “body of believers”? There are a few more instances that I’d like to bring up, but I’m short on time here at work.

BTW, how far are you from Cleveland? I’m in Cleveland once or twice a year (Landerhaven area).

 

[NotWorthy]

The literal word Jesus spoke when talking about church was ekklesia, which means assembly or community. My literal translation of the Bible doesn’t use the word church, but assembly. Of course, using the word church would be the obvious translation into modern English. However, no where in the NT is the word church capitalized I searched several translations including the ASV), being lower case it would refer to a body of believers, which is what I believe the church is, everyone who has accepted Christ as Lord. We could get into baptism (personally I believe it is required), but that is another thread.
Stay inside this holiday weekend, I’ll bet west Texas is HOT this time of year (I’m guessing, Sour Lake sounds like a desert name). Enjoy the Fourth.

I wanted to add that I always find it odd that people try and find the “interpretation” of a word, and ignore how the Greek-speaking people of the 1st century interpreted ekklesia. From the letters of Clement and Ignatius, it seems obvious that they interpret it as Church, the way Catholics interpret it today. I mean, Clement knew Peter and Paul, while Ignatius knew Peter and John. Those are pretty good pedigrees, if you ask me.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

In regards to your question, I think paragraph 1253 & 4 best describes how the Church teaches Infant Baptism.

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!”

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.

 

[jcrichton]

Every Person, must decide to accept Christ for themselves. Infant Baptism does not save.
Households could include servants and slaves as well as family members, but it never specifically says that he baptised every single person in the household.

…wouldn’t that go against Yahweh God’s Law–did He not Command that if Israel owned slaves or employed servants that they must live according to His Commandments (including worship and circumscition)?

…so how is it that a household would exclude children and the sevants/slaves when it comes to worshiping?

…further, where is the Biblical formula for the “right/correct” Baptism (including the age of the persons and their status)?

Why can’t people understand that till John the Baptist, the Kingdom of God was not pronounced as immediate and that Baptism (the New Covenant initiation rite) did not ever take place? …ergo, those initially Baptized were, for the most part and not limited to, adult Jews?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Dedication, and Baptism, are two different things, Baptism, is a public announcement of your being saved, and Dedication, is an act carried out by the parents, dedicating their child to the Lord.

…so Jesus was making a public statement when He had John the Baptist Baptize Him? …no wonder the Pharisees and Sadducees stuck their noses up at Him when He walked about all Baptized and junk (a little sarc)…

Maran atha!

Angel