Does the bible have any Infant Baptism passage?

[RNRobert]

mercygate:

Baptism removes BOTH original and actual sin.

From the CCC:

Thanks for the correction. I thought it did, but was kind of in a rush when I wrote that.

Of course, in the case of babies, they do not have actual sin, just original sin.

 

[mercygate]

RNRobert:

Thanks for the correction. I thought it did, but was kind of in a rush when I wrote that.

Of course, in the case of babies, they do not have actual sin, just original sin.

I new you new dat. :tiphat:

 

[SPOKENWORD]

hlgomez:

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

Hi Hlgomez. You know I was doing alittle thinking on this. Yes one Baptism but three persons. So we really recieve the baptism of the Holy Spirit,we also recieve Christ into our lives[born again]
and thirdly God as our Father who we really came to know through Jesus Christ. Three infusions,one baptism. Does it make sense in what Im saying. God Bless.

 

[kims]

yes the bible has a passage for everything in it.

 

[BIC]

vern humphrey:

The “proof” is in Catholic tradition. As John tells us (John 21, 25)
“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

For about 350 years there was no New Testament, and the traditions of the Church were the standard (Canon) for these matters.

I often point out to persons seeking coversion, "If a Protestant tells you his religion is based on the New Testament, he’s right – there was someone who read and interpreted the New Testament to arrive at the core doctrine of his church.

“But if someone tells you Catholicism is based on the New Testament, he’s wrong. The Catholic Church existed for hundreds of years before the New Testament was formed. The Catholic Church is not based on the New Testament, the New Testament is based on the Catholic Church.”

Did you make this up?

 

[BIC]

He left Peter in charge of His Church and the 7 sacraments.

What are the 7 sacraments?

Thanks for you answer

BIC

 

[BIC]

When John said to repent and be baptised, he wasn’t saying that children could not be baptised.

How can a baby repent? Is it repent and be baptised? or one or the other? What about free will? Doesnt the child need to be of age to make that decision?

BIC

 

[Church_Militant]

SPOKENWORD:

Where does it say that we should? If you can repent then come forward and be baptised,that what John the Baptist preached Do you deny what he said.?.God Bless

SPOKENWORD,
But Christian baptism is NOT the same as that of John The Baptist, Since even Christ submitted to it. John’s baptism was not an expression of faith in Christ but of Jewish repentance.
The “come forward” and all that altar call stuff is only found in non-Catholic Christian religions founded by men in the last 487 years and so had no basis in the real NT church practice. Unlike infant baptism as practiced by the Catholic Church which is verifiable by the writings of members of that same early church.

You quite obviously have YOUR assumptions as well my friend…as do all who do not follow the original NT church that Jesus Himself founded. Besides haven’t we dealt with this whole infant baptism question pretty extensively on at least one other thread??

Tea’s ready? Want some? http://pages.prodigy.net/bestsmileys1/emoticons1/coffee.gif

 

[Church_Militant]

BIC:

Did you make this up?

NO…

 

[MCOLE]

Church Militant, you’ve got it going! Spoken, keep your heart open. I love these forums! I’m learning so much!!! As a recent convert who is going through RCIA, all that I’ve read…I have never had an issue with infant Baptism and find all of this very interesting. I have seen several infant baptisms performed in the Catholic Church I am attending and find it quite beautiful and reaffirming in the fact that we have parents and god-parents proclaiming to the church that they will raise these children in the faith. What a wonderful thing! I just wonder if Spoken has ever witnessed a Catholic infant baptism?
M

 

[MCOLE]

Oops, sorry, Spoken. I now see that you are familiar with Catholic traditions. Somehow in my first reading frenzy I missed an entire page of posts. Now, I’ve got to get back to reading.

 

[Malachi4U]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi C.M. Nice try. In reading acts 16 vs 31…And once again you assume there are babies there…

Uhm??? This is another one of your double standards. You can assume no babies were present in the household but for him to accept the possibilty of them being present is wrong?:whacky:

God bless,

 

[Malachi4U]

My wife went to Bible Study Fellowship Intl. (BSF) last night and low and behold they preached about this very verse and topic. So what did this protestant group teach?

The BSF group leader told my wife that when the Bible talks about groups being saved or baptized it actually means they ALL got saved individually and at various times but eventually they all got baptized but not all at once. No unbelieving indiciduals got baptized either or ‘saved’. This is because God DOES NOT WORK WITH GROUPS! God works with individuals! Thats right, they used the word ‘works’ too! So, by their protestant opinions, evertime the Bible talks or mentions groups, it really means individuals.

My question to my wife, “Is BSF wrong or is the Bible wrong?” UHM??? I’ll stick with Scripture! How easy it is to invent opinions on theology to support your own opinions when the Bible sounds too Catholic.

So I pose this question to all, does God only work (‘deeds’ or ‘doing’ for you KJV users) with individuals? Is the Bible wrong when it states groups? Please give verses or historical evidence too.

PS, my wife thought this was out there on the planet KOBAL with the top Mormon god too.:whacky: That’s why she brought it to me.

BSF, also teaches that ‘the angel of the Lord’ is Jesus. Thus Jesus appeared numerous times in the OT. So much Gabrial being the angel of the Lord Lk 1. I guess its just another KJV error?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

One of Gods promises to us as christians is that our entire household will come to serve the Lord. Are all of our family members serving God at this time? Its in Gods time that they will.I tend to agree that God works on us individually,just like when we approach judgement we will all go individually. God Bless

 

[NonDenom]

I was wondering if the bible had any passage where someone was baptising an Infant?

I think there is a passage where a Jailer had is whole family baptised. From that I think you could make the assumption that since there was no birth control that this person had several children of different ages who were all baptised (I am not sure of the correct verse)

Is there any other proof that babies were baptised?

Hi Ho All
I have been looking and found nothing that specificly says that young children were Baptized. It’s funny how Catholics will use
Luke 18:16 as a reason for Baptizing baby’s, but say that the same Jesus who told the disiples not to forbid them, would not accept them because they were’nt Baptized. I guess they would be stuck in limbo.
Thanks.

 

[Melchior]

Randell:

I was wondering if the bible had any passage where someone was baptising an Infant?

I think there is a passage where a Jailer had is whole family baptised. From that I think you could make the assumption that since there was no birth control that this person had several children of different ages who were all baptised (I am not sure of the correct verse)

Is there any other proof that babies were baptised?

Of course. As other have said. Let me summarize:

Household baptisms were the norm. Households, particularly in the ancient world, opften ahd babies and small children in them. Thus babies were baptized according the biblical account.

Also remember the New Testament is a record of the first generation of the Church. So it is quite natural that we see the fist convets, adults, being baptized. If the New Testament went on to chronical the next generation we would see lots of infant baptisms. In fact it should be assumed in Timothy’s case.

Mel

 

[anawim]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Catholic. Thats the point,like you said ,repentence is something we must do . When we repent and recieve Jesus as Lord and Savior this is when we are baptised by the Holy Spirit. Like Jesus said, Water and Spirit. This is when our names get written into the book of life,at that exact moment. Our slate is clean by the blood of the lamb.Praise God. God Bless
.

Actually the names that are in the book of life have been there since the foundation of the world. (cf. Rev 13:8 & 17:8)

 

[MariaG]

NonDenom:

Hi Ho All
I have been looking and found nothing that specificly says that young children were Baptized. It’s funny how Catholics will use
Luke 18:16 as a reason for Baptizing baby’s, but say that the same Jesus who told the disiples not to forbid them, would not accept them because they were’nt Baptized. I guess they would be stuck in limbo.
Thanks.

There are Many, many verses from the Bible on infant baptism, implicitly and more explicit, like the one comparing circumcision to baptism.

God is not the author of confusion. Why make a bad comparison to circumcision if infants were not allowed to be baptized? Cause God couldn’t think of any other way to inspire the explanation of baptism?

We can also look at the early writing of Christians, and they specifically denounce those who would deny infants baptism.

From CA Library Early teachings on Infant Baptism
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]).

Hippolytus

“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 [A.D. 215]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“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]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

You can disagree as people did and were denounced by Christians. But infant baptism is not only biblical, but historical. It is only later that people denied the apostolic teaching of infant baptism.

For infant baptism to be wrong, that means that for 1600 years, Christianity was wrongly baptizing infants, because **Lutherans baptize infants also. **

---

If infant baptism is false, that does not look like leading us to all truth like Scripture promises.

All of those quotes are before 300AD. Was Christianity in error and stay in error for hundreds of years?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[YADA]

Baptism is a 'birth into the family of Jesus [God]. I have read posts that indicate ‘entire households’ do not have to include infants or children.

Our roots are in the Jewish practices that forshadow the truths of our Christian faith and practice. A parallel practice within Judaism is the practice of circumcision. Abraham was instructed to circumcise his entire [male] household. Relatives, servants, slaves, etc. This ‘marked’ them as beleivers of the ‘One True God’ Now, once this practice was instituted; first, primarily upon adults and upon any children present, the practice was then primarily upon infants [baby boys on the octave or 8th day]. Now not everyone of the adults circumcised may the choice to follow the God of Abraham. Abraham made that choice for them.

Similarly, within the Christain community, initially beleivers were brought into the faith primarily as adults. However, but to baptize and entire household is inclusive of all those customary to households; extended family that can range from infants to the aged. Servants and slaves. Servants and slaves are like children who are unable to make a personal decision or perhaps due to their circumstances are constrained ot compelled to perform and act. The action is made upon their behalf by the person who speaks for them.

It is disengenous to assert that there were no infants/children present or that they were not included in the baptism or that servants/slaves freely assented or were somehow excluded from the ‘entire household.’ To assert this, what evidence do you have? Christianity has baptized the infants from within the Christian community from the beginning. It baptizes adults from without. The concept makes sense.

 

[Melchior]

*Acts 2:38

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.*

In this passage Peter is speaking with Jews who understand themselves to be member of God’s covenant made with Abraham. As a result these Jews made sure their male infants were circumcized to bring them into covenant. Conevant membership was a family thing. Peter to tell them to be baptized, in the context of referring to the Prophet Joel (earlier in Acts 2) who was referring back to Genesis 11 where God made the covenant with Abraham with circumcision as it’s sign. It would have been unthinkable to these Jewish men to think of excluding their family from covenant membership - unless Peter indicated some radical shift in how God would deal with them. Well Peter did not. So it is historically absurd to think that these men did not bring their entire family with them to be baptized.

Mel