Does the bible have any Infant Baptism passage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

What does it hurt them? It is a beautiful sacrament.
 
40.png
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
Click to expand...
Hi Spokenword,
I’m confused. I’m not sure what you’re saying and I’m trying to understand. Are you saying that it’s wrong to baptise infants because it goes against Bible teaching? It doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that we should not baptise our infants and children. When John said to repent and be baptised, he wasn’t saying that children could not be baptised.

As far as repenting, good Catholics repent through Reconcillation, Penance and the Holy Eucharist frequently. The sacrament of Confirmation takes place at 12 years old.

Blessings,
Shannin
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Okay,so what happened to the girls,they were not circumsized? :eek: God. Bless
Click to expand...
Why do you post silly things like that? That is irrelevent to the whole discussion…you are trying to divert & confuse people I think…Ask the Jews that question…there was no such problem among Christains.
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Jesus said .Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to carry out everthing I have commanded you. Kind of HARD thing to do to a baby. :confused: God Bless.
Click to expand...
Not so! It is a Christian parent’s resposibilty to teach his children the faith…not just the church. It really is a team effort by the whole body of Christ, but the Catholic Church teaches that this is our first and foremost area of evangelism. One should remember what the communists said years ago…“give us a child from birth to age 5 and you will never be able to change him”. Most doctors consider that the formative years anyway
 
Acts 18
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.

Acts 19
1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
*scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III

home.inreach.com/bstanley/baptism.htm

communionofsaints.net/sacraments/baptism.html *
 
Dear SPOKENWORD:

You said:
Yes br. Fiat,But God is in control. He will not allow one of these little ones to perish. I trust Him because He loves us to much that babies would perish. 👍 God Bless
Click to expand...
Are you sure that you aren’t imposing your personal, gut feelings on Our Almighty God? What basis do you have for asserting that children are beyond the word of God in light of the fact that ALL are sinners.

Those who reject infant Baptism use the same reasoning tht the Supreme Court used in dealing with the abortion issue. The Supreme Court was asked whether or not a fetus is a person who is guaranteed the right to life under the constitution. Should the unborn be included or excluded form teh right of personhood? Since the Supreme Court was unable to answer the question, rather than erring on the side of INCLUSION, they excluded the unborn and made the abortion legal.

Those who reject infant Baptism state that there is no biblical warrant for including infants and children in Baptism. The reql question is does the Bible specifically exclude infants and children from Baptism? Absolutely Not!

Your bro
Fiat
 
SpokenWord:

Forgive me for reading between the lines, but I think you’re trying to solve a problem that isn’t your responsibility to solve.

The problem is, if Catholics say that we have to Baptize infants, then what happens to infants who die before Baptism? Some would say they’re not saved because they haven’t been Baptized; others would point out that they can’t be condemned because they haven’t done anything wrong.

Your solution is to turn Baptism into something that is elected by those who are old enough to repent for their sins. Your theory then assumes that those sinless infants or small children who die before they are Baptized either don’t need salvation, or will be saved by something other than Baptism because “God will not allow the little ones to perish.”

It nicely wraps up the loose ends, but it’s neither historical nor biblical.

The Catholic Church has always held that Baptism is necessary to remove Original Sin. For later sins, we have the sacrament of Confession (now called Reconciliation.) There is an ambiguity as to what happens to babies, who have Original Sin from the moment the soul enters their body, and who die before they are Baptized. We can theorize that they will be saved by God’s mercy and love, but we can’t know that for a fact.

And it’s not because we’ve started a Church without thinking through the ramifications of our principles. It’s because Jesus founded a Church without explaining to the Apostles every little thing we’d ever need to know. Whether unbaptized infants get to heaven is His problem to solve, not ours.
 
40.png
ianraygor:
Acts 18
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.

Acts 19
1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III

home.inreach.com/bstanley/baptism.htm

communionofsaints.net/sacraments/baptism.html
Click to expand...
Hi Ian, Sure sounds to me like two baptisms. John baptised with water[repentence] and Jesus baptised with the Holy Spirit. Thus Water and Spirit. 👍 God Bless.
 
Paul W:
SpokenWord:

Forgive me for reading between the lines, but I think you’re trying to solve a problem that isn’t your responsibility to solve.

The problem is, if Catholics say that we have to Baptize infants, then what happens to infants who die before Baptism? Some would say they’re not saved because they haven’t been Baptized; others would point out that they can’t be condemned because they haven’t done anything wrong.

Your solution is to turn Baptism into something that is elected by those who are old enough to repent for their sins. Your theory then assumes that those sinless infants or small children who die before they are Baptized either don’t need salvation, or will be saved by something other than Baptism because “God will not allow the little ones to perish.”

It nicely wraps up the loose ends, but it’s neither historical nor biblical.

The Catholic Church has always held that Baptism is necessary to remove Original Sin. For later sins, we have the sacrament of Confession (now called Reconciliation.) There is an ambiguity as to what happens to babies, who have Original Sin from the moment the soul enters their body, and who die before they are Baptized. We can theorize that they will be saved by God’s mercy and love, but we can’t know that for a fact.

And it’s not because we’ve started a Church without thinking through the ramifications of our principles. It’s because Jesus founded a Church without explaining to the Apostles every little thing we’d ever need to know. Whether unbaptized infants get to heaven is His problem to solve, not ours.
Click to expand...
Well put Paul. 👍 God Bless
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Hi Ian, Sure sounds to me like two baptisms. John baptised with water[repentence] and Jesus baptised with the Holy Spirit. Thus Water and Spirit. 👍 God Bless.
Click to expand...
Nope! Just one baptism (Eph. 4:5). When John the Baptist baptized with water it was symbolic of repentence. It didn’t actually do anything. Jesus changed that. Now water baptism actually does what it symbolizes. When one is baptized in water one dies and rises to new life (Romans 6:3-4), receives the holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and is cleansed of sin (Acts 2:38, acts 22:16).

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
Fiat:
Dear SPOKENWORD:

You said:
Are you sure that you aren’t imposing your personal, gut feelings on Our Almighty God? What basis do you have for asserting that children are beyond the word of God in light of the fact that ALL are sinners.

Those who reject infant Baptism use the same reasoning tht the Supreme Court used in dealing with the abortion issue. The Supreme Court was asked whether or not a fetus is a person who is guaranteed the right to life under the constitution. Should the unborn be included or excluded form teh right of personhood? Since the Supreme Court was unable to answer the question, rather than erring on the side of INCLUSION, they excluded the unborn and made the abortion legal.

Those who reject infant Baptism state that there is no biblical warrant for including infants and children in Baptism. The reql question is does the Bible specifically exclude infants and children from Baptism? Absolutely Not!

Your bro
Fiat
Click to expand...
Hi.Fiat ,The truth is that there is biblical proof about children but I disagree about infants.Its all based on speculation. Jesus did say let the children come to me. Think about this statement. Children can approach Jesus by themselves,but ask you infant baby
to approach Jesus and that is not going to happen. Yes , this is in Gods hands not mine. With God all things are possible. 👍 God Bless.
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
Nope! Just one baptism (Eph. 4:5). When John the Baptist baptized with water it was symbolic of repentence. It didn’t actually do anything. Jesus changed that. Now water baptism actually does what it symbolizes. When one is baptized in water one dies and rises to new life (Romans 6:3-4), receives the holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and is cleansed of sin (Acts 2:38, acts 22:16).

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
Click to expand...
What was Johns purpose if it actually did nothing? Maybe he should have stayed out in the desert. Makes no sense to me. :confused: God Bless
 
Dear SPOKENWORD:

You said:
What was Johns purpose if it actually did nothing? Maybe he should have stayed out in the desert. Makes no sense to me. :confused: God Bless
Click to expand...
The reason this does not make any sense to you is because you may not have a firm understanding of Judaism. The Old Testament is clear that Jews practiced ritual cleansing WITH WATER. John’s baptism does not equate itself effectively with the baptism of the New Covenant since the New Covenant at this point is not fully in position. Therefore, Jews always included children and INFANTS in ritual cleansing WITH WATER. Again, this is why a Jew would have understood the promise in Acts that baptism is for the people there AND THEIR CHILDREN to include…well…THEIR CHILDREN (infants and all.)

You may find this site helpful. myjewishlearning.com/
Peace:)
Fiat
 
SPOKENWORD:

Satisfy my curiosity please, Why did you choose your name as Spokenword. It seems that you are only relying on your own or a non-Catholic interpretation of WrittenWord.

The Church relies on the Written Word (Scripture), the Spoken Word, (Apostolic Tradition), and the direct commands of Christ (Magisterial Authority).

You choose one because…??
 
Although I don’t completely agree with Spokenword, I do see his point. Why does the Church baptize infants if sacred scripture tends to speak of the sacrament in concert with both faith and repentence? It seems to me that infant baptism is an example of a practice that arose amongst the faithful before it recieved theological justification. The reason infant baptism became so wide spread was that, in the early to late middle ages, many babies died in infancy and the Church believed that no one was saved without recieving physical baptism.

Today, however, not only are there much lower infant mortality rates but, since Vatican II, the Church has indicated that salvation is possible without the reception of physical baptism. Granted, baptism is the only means** we know about** thatGod has given his people to wash away original sin. So, I’m not saying that people should stop baptizing their babies. I’m simply questioning a seemingly antiquated practice of the Church.

Another point is that infant baptism tends to promote a sense of indifference amongst the faithful. Let’s face it, converts to the Church, especially those who are baptized for the first time, tend to be more fervent than many cradle Catholics that take the tremendous gift of God’s grace for granted. Here’s a good question: What is the percentage of pro-choice cradle Catholics vs. pro-choice converts? I’d wager the rate would be much higher for the former than the latter. Why is this? My guess would be that adults who become Catholic have a greater sense of ownership when it comes to their faith than those who were born into it. This is where the repentence aspect of baptism is so key and why you usually see the sacrament accompanied by both faith and repentence in the scripture.
 
Dear JCamm:

Good question, but although the Church baptizes infants, this does not mean faith is taken out of the equation. The Church relies upon the faith of the parents and the parents’ promise that their children will be instructed in the faith.

Your brother,
Fiat
 
40.png
MrS:
SPOKENWORD:

Satisfy my curiosity please, Why did you choose your name as Spokenword. It seems that you are only relying on your own or a non-Catholic interpretation of WrittenWord.

The Church relies on the Written Word (Scripture), the Spoken Word, (Apostolic Tradition), and the direct commands of Christ (Magisterial Authority).

You choose one because…??
Click to expand...
Im more then glad to share how I came up with the name. I own a bicycle shop and even though I sell bicycles I also preach the good news to many customers that come in. Spoke being part of a bicycle,and Word is what I speak to my customers. So goes the name Spokenword. My own word has no value and no power,But the Word Of God is a two edged sword.It has power. 👍 God Bless.
 
Whatever happened to “Suffer not the little ones to come unto me, for such is the kingdom of heaven.”
 
40.png
Fiat:
Dear SPOKENWORD:

You said:
The reason this does not make any sense to you is because you may not have a firm understanding of Judaism. The Old Testament is clear that Jews practiced ritual cleansing WITH WATER. John’s baptism does not equate itself effectively with the baptism of the New Covenant since the New Covenant at this point is not fully in position. Therefore, Jews always included children and INFANTS in ritual cleansing WITH WATER. Again, this is why a Jew would have understood the promise in Acts that baptism is for the people there AND THEIR CHILDREN to include…well…THEIR CHILDREN (infants and all.)

You may find this site helpful. myjewishlearning.com/
Peace:)
Fiat
Click to expand...
Hi Fiat, I checked out the site. Didnt see anything about water being used in infant ritual ceromonies. :confused: God Bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top