Does the bible have any Infant Baptism passage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Hi Danny, Were the girls circumsized also? :confused: God Bless
Hi Spokes,
It’s me again… :eek:
Anyway, you keep bringing up the girls in this discussion and I don’t understand why. It’s not the Catholic Church’s fault that the NT compares Baptism to circumcision nor that the NT plainly says that entire households were baptised, which shows that whole families joined. Now just for drill let’s consider the passage about the Philippian jailer and his family.

Acts 16:
25 And at midnight, Paul and Silas, praying, praised God. And they that were in prison heard them.

26 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And immediately all the doors were opened and the bands of all were loosed.

27 And the keeper of the prison, awakening out of his sleep and seeing the doors of the prison open, drawing his sword, would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.

28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying: Do thyself no harm, for we all are here.

29 Then calling for a light, he went in: and trembling, fell down at the feet of Paul and Silas.

30 And bringing them out, he said: Masters, what must I do, that I may be saved?

31 But they said: believe in the Lord Jesus: and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

32 And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house.

33 And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes: and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

Okay, I note a couple of things here that are interesting.

(1) Off topic-kiss the immersion thing goodbye. This was the middle of the night and he had been washing their stripes…sounds like a container of water to me. I very seriously doubt that they went down to the nearest river (if there even was one,. We lack info of the geography of this city.) in the middle of the night.

(2) On topic- "and all his house " it says, now this could be anything from just he & his wife to him,his wife,kids extended family and even servants and their kids & extended families, but I would say that the logical context is that it was a family that included children and that CAN imply babies as well. The fact that the Jews circumcised on the 8th day is significant.

Now- the issue you keep making about the girls is irrelevent since the issue is baptism not gender bias in Judaism and we know that both males & females were baptised in the NT.

I’ll quote a guy I really don’t like much on this topic; Francis Schaefer, who said that w/in the form of Christianity there is great freedom of practice. Hence I say there is no reason, Biblically or traditionally to exclude infants from the sacrament of baptism.

I would also point out that since Christianity is a cult of Judaism that we carried over the profession of faith for infants by their parents the same as they did on the 8th day. That presentation on the 8th day wasn’t just about the child, but it was a profession of faith by the parents & a commitment to do their best to raise their children as faithful Jews. This is the very same thing that happens in a Catholic Baptism. the parents & godparents answer for the child and then commit themselves to seeing that the child grows up in the faith. This is scriptural because of the proverb “Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.”

We both know that if Christian parents do their job that their children generally profess the faith too (usually sooner rather than later. Deo gratias).

The whole non-Catholic practice of baptism is weird because almost none of them believe it washes away sins, yet the NT plainly says so… and yet most treat it as optional when the NT stresses its necessity.

(1 Peter 3:21 “Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also:”).

I feel that the Catholic Church is more faithful to the contextual teaching of the NT on Baptism than any other church.
 
Church Militant:
Hi Spokes,
It’s me again… :eek:
Anyway, you keep bringing up the girls in this discussion and I don’t understand why. It’s not the Catholic Church’s fault that the NT compares Baptism to circumcision nor that the NT plainly says that entire households were baptised, which shows that whole families joined. Now just for drill let’s consider the passage about the Philippian jailer and his family.

Acts 16:
25 And at midnight, Paul and Silas, praying, praised God. And they that were in prison heard them.

26 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And immediately all the doors were opened and the bands of all were loosed.

27 And the keeper of the prison, awakening out of his sleep and seeing the doors of the prison open, drawing his sword, would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.

28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying: Do thyself no harm, for we all are here.

29 Then calling for a light, he went in: and trembling, fell down at the feet of Paul and Silas.

30 And bringing them out, he said: Masters, what must I do, that I may be saved?

31 But they said: believe in the Lord Jesus: and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

32 And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house.

33 And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes: and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

Okay, I note a couple of things here that are interesting.

(1) Off topic-kiss the immersion thing goodbye. This was the middle of the night and he had been washing their stripes…sounds like a container of water to me. I very seriously doubt that they went down to the nearest river (if there even was one,. We lack info of the geography of this city.) in the middle of the night.

(2) On topic- "and all his house " it says, now this could be anything from just he & his wife to him,his wife,kids extended family and even servants and their kids & extended families, but I would say that the logical context is that it was a family that included children and that CAN imply babies as well. The fact that the Jews circumcised on the 8th day is significant.

Now- the issue you keep making about the girls is irrelevent since the issue is baptism not gender bias in Judaism and we know that both males & females were baptised in the NT.

I’ll quote a guy I really don’t like much on this topic; Francis Schaefer, who said that w/in the form of Christianity there is great freedom of practice. Hence I say there is no reason, Biblically or traditionally to exclude infants from the sacrament of baptism.

I would also point out that since Christianity is a cult of Judaism that we carried over the profession of faith for infants by their parents the same as they did on the 8th day. That presentation on the 8th day wasn’t just about the child, but it was a profession of faith by the parents & a commitment to do their best to raise their children as faithful Jews. This is the very same thing that happens in a Catholic Baptism. the parents & godparents answer for the child and then commit themselves to seeing that the child grows up in the faith. This is scriptural because of the proverb “Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.”

We both know that if Christian parents do their job that their children generally profess the faith too (usually sooner rather than later. Deo gratias).

The whole non-Catholic practice of baptism is weird because almost none of them believe it washes away sins, yet the NT plainly says so… and yet most treat it as optional when the NT stresses its necessity.

(1 Peter 3:21 “Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also:”).

I feel that the Catholic Church is more faithful to the contextual teaching of the NT on Baptism than any other church.
Hi C.M. Nice try. 😃 In reading acts 16 vs 31 it doesnt say IMMEDIATLY. You see the appostles knew the promises of God in His Word. Gods promise is that when we recieve the Lord Jesus Christ our family will also come to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Its not an immediate process but it will happen in Gods time. As for me and my household we will serve the Lord. lThats Gods promise.Im hoping that you didnt add that word[immediatly] for that would be a no no. :eek: Youll notice they [the family]were not baptised immediatly. Also notice there are no rivers flowing through the house,so this was deffinatly a Holy Spirit baptism[no water] Only after taking the appostles to his home was his family saved by the laying of hands. And once again you assume there are babies there. God Bless.
 
40.png
jphilapy:
Howdy,

I have been doing some study on this and I come to a similar conclusion as SPOKENWORD.

Based on the scriptural evidence I don’t see how the RC comes to its conclusion that water baptism is what brings actual new birth.

First, scripture is clear that it is the Spirit that brings new birth. Secondly scripture is clear that folks received the Spirit seperate from the water baptism, and in at least one case before water baptism.

When a person receives the Spirit they receive circumscison of the heart, they recieve the life of Christ and they are made the sons of God. Now since folks throughout the NT received the Spirit seperate from water baptism this shows they were given new birth seperate from water baptism. And this means that when Corneilius received the Spirit before the water, that he was in effect reborn before receiving water baptism. Now there can’t possibly be two new births.

Now RCs seem to advocate that there are two water baptisms, one is that of John and of repentence and the second is that of the apostles and is for regeneration. I don’t see that in scripture. For example the apostles where baptised by John’s baptism. When Jesus told the apostles to wait for him in Jerusalem and there they would be baptised in the Spirit, Jesus did not tell them to get baptised in water. That is because they were already baptised by water. And if you read the account in acts on the day of pentecost, it tells us what they were doing when they received the Spirit and it was not baptising in water. If John’s baptism was different than the baptism then all who received John’s baptism and not the baptism of the Spirit would have been rebaptised so they could get the baptism that brings new birth. But they werent.

Also regarding the baptism being equivilent to circumcision. If it is equivilent then it is, based on my findings above, only symbolic. I don’t see in scripture where baptism is equated to circumcision. The only thing I see it equated to is regeneration, and this is symbolic based on my findings. The closest thing that is stated to be a equivilent to the fleshly circumcison is the idea that our hearts are circumcised by the Spirit of God. And the scripture also says the Spirit is our seal. This is never used to describe baptism. Also circumcison is called the seal.

If my findings are accurate then I don’t see any support for infant baptism either as in evidence that infants where baptised, and support for the reasoning used by RC.

Jeff
Hi Jeff, GREAT POST!! 👍
 
Hi SPOKENWORD:

You said:
Also notice there are no rivers flowing through the house,so this was deffinatly a Holy Spirit baptism[no water] Only after taking the appostles to his home was his family saved by the laying of hands
Where does it say that the jailer received the laying on of hands? I missed that.

In faith,
Fiat
 
40.png
Fiat:
Hi SPOKENWORD:

You said:

Where does it say that the jailer received the laying on of hands? I missed that.

In faith,
Fiat
Well if John baptised in water and John said Jesus will baptise in the Holy Spirit. Then it was by the laying of hands that they recieved baptism of the Holy Spirit.Your right it doesnt say,But like you I assume that was the way one recieved the Holy Spirit baptism. :confused: God Bless.
 
Holy Spirit/baptism: The Holy Spirit is seen to descend upon Christ at his water baptism. Methinks that a pretty sizeable warrant for joining water baptism with the reception of the Holy Spirit.

The question then is, do we receive the Holy Spirit more than once? Does the Holy Spirit come to us in different ways, at different times, for different reasons?

Certainly. Indeed, grace is manifold.
 
Hi SPOKENWORD:

For the record, I don’t assume that the laying on of hands is “the way one receives the baptism of the holy spirit.” Mercygate’s answer accurately reflects my understanding of Catholic teaching. I recommend reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, particularly the articles dealing with the sacraments of initiation.

In Faith,
Fiat
 
Hi C.M. Nice try. In reading acts 16 vs 31 it doesnt say IMMEDIATLY. You see the appostles knew the promises of God in His Word. Gods promise is that when we recieve the Lord Jesus Christ our family will also come to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Its not an immediate process but it will happen in Gods time. As for me and my household we will serve the Lord. lThats Gods promise.Im hoping that you didnt add that word[immediatly] for that would be a no no. Youll notice they [the family]were not baptised immediatly. Also notice there are no rivers flowing through the house,so this was deffinatly a Holy Spirit baptism[no water] Only after taking the appostles to his home was his family saved by the laying of hands. And once again you assume there are babies there.
Hi again Spokenword ! 😉

Did you mean verse 33, because in looking at the text as posted , immediately is nowhere in verse 31? I didn’t add that, that’s straight copy/paste from the Douay-Rheims version NT. Verse 33 DOES say that he took them at that same hour and his whole household was baptised. Your idea that it was some pentecostal experience is YOUR assumption since the text nowhere states that there was any laying on of hands or tongues or gifts of the Holy Spirit maiufested. You’re reading “baptism of the Holy Spirit” into the passage without basis.

At least my view of “and all his house” for infant baptism is a logical and textually based assumption…

Pax tecum,
 
Church Militant:
Hi again Spokenword ! 😉

Did you mean verse 33, because in looking at the text as posted , immediately is nowhere in verse 31? I didn’t add that, that’s straight copy/paste from the Douay-Rheims version NT. Verse 33 DOES say that he took them at that same hour and his whole household was baptised. Your idea that it was some pentecostal experience is YOUR assumption since the text nowhere states that there was any laying on of hands or tongues or gifts of the Holy Spirit maiufested. You’re reading “baptism of the Holy Spirit” into the passage without basis.

At least my view of “and all his house” for infant baptism is a logical and textually based assumption…

Pax tecum,
Hi .C. M. You quoted immediately in vs. 33. My two version do not say that. I do see what it is saying. It says that after they were brought into the house they all were baptised immediately. Again our understanding comes into play? Now how were they baptised? What were the appostles doing before they were thrown into prison? I believe they were going around and laying hands and healing the sick. They were bringing people to Christ by the laying of hands and praying for them. Thats how they recieved the Holy Spirit.This is exactly what they did at the Jailers house. 😉 God Bless.
 
Church Militant:
Hi C.M… Lets look at act 16 vs.14. Here you see Paul meeting Lydia and after Paul spoke to Lydia her heart opened up to the words of the Lord. She was then baptised in the Holy Ghost. These next words are important. Lydia says to Paul, IF you are convinced that I BELIEVE IN THE LORD,come and stay at my house. What do you think happened here? That is the question.? :confused: God Bless…
 
Hi SPOKENWORD:

I’m not sure what your point is. Could you explain a little further? Thank you.

In faith,
Fiat
 
40.png
Fiat:
Hi SPOKENWORD:

I’m not sure what your point is. Could you explain a little further? Thank you.

In faith,
Fiat
My point is that Lydia knew God but She did not know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And After St. Paul ministered to her she recieved Jesus as Lord and BELIEVED.She recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit along with all her family by the laying of hands and praying for them to recieve the Holy Spirit. Again you see no water involved here.Its very possible here that Lydia and her family were taken to the river and were baptised in water.Personally in my oppinion this is exactly what happened.The apostles were very close to the river.That was there great commission. Go and preach the Good News,baptise them in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We get baptised in the Father knowing Him as Daddy God,Again in the Son, Jesus as Our Lord and Savior,and again in the Holy Spirit,our helper ,our teacher. 👍 God Bless.
 
Dear SPOKENWORD:

Do I understand you to say that we get baptized three (3) times?

Fiat
 
40.png
Fiat:
Dear SPOKENWORD:

Do I understand you to say that we get baptized three (3) times?

Fiat
ONE BAPTISM,THREE PERSONS. It sure looks like it in the Flesh? Pay close attention next time you see a babys baptism. I believe that the priest reaches in three times with the sprinkling of water. Is that three baptisms? :confused: God Bless.
 
Hi Randall. Not in my bible,just alot of assumptions.Water baptism was for those who could repent. Babys diapers are the only thing that gets wet. 😃 That doesnt mean that babys are excluded or unprotected,it means they are not able to repent at this time. 😃 God Bless.
Spoken word,

What is that actual sin that the babies who needs to be baptized need to repent? Crying?

Pio
 
ONE BAPTISM,THREE PERSONS. It sure looks like it in the Flesh? Pay close attention next time you see a babys baptism. I believe that the priest reaches in three times with the sprinkling of water. Is that three baptisms? :confused: God Bless.
That’s a tradition of the Church, particularly in the Roman rite. Notice the formula: I baptize you in the name of the Father+, and of the Son+, and of the Holy Spirit+… it’s not “names” but “name.” Sprinkling 3 times is attributed to each Person. That’s a 2000 year tradition.

Pio
 
40.png
hlgomez:
Spoken word,

What is that actual sin that the babies who needs to be baptized need to repent? Crying?

Pio
Your right they dont need to repent because they cant. Second they havnt committed any sin, ,just inherited sin. Isn,t that terrible that we are responsable for someone elses sin.? Oh well,I didnt make the rules. God Bless.
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Your right they dont need to repent because they cant. Second they havnt committed any sin, ,just inherited sin. Isn,t that terrible that we are responsable for someone elses sin.? Oh well,I didnt make the rules. God Bless.
Baptism doesn’t take away personal sins that we commit, but original sin, which we all are born with.
 
40.png
RNRobert:
Baptism doesn’t take away personal sins that we commit, but original sin, which we all are born with.
Baptism removes BOTH original and actual sin.

From the CCC:
**1263 **By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top