Does the bible have any Infant Baptism passage?

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

ahimsaman72 – I recall a friend in my youth telling me that his pastor would not allow him to be baptized (don’t remember the denomination) when he was around 9 because he was “too young.”

Can’t say that I’ve heard that before. I could understand if he was the age of 4 or something, but I wouldn’t consider 9 to be too young at all. By the age of 9, children can reason and accept/reject.

I guess when we look at it this way, although there isn’t a certain age to be baptized, there is an age not to be - and that age has to be left up to the parents and pastor as to the extent of understanding that the child has.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Fiat:

Dear SPOKENWORD:

Your notion of salvation is that we need to receive Jesus. Can you explain to someone who is not a Christian what he needs to do in order to “receive Jesus”? I’m not trying to trap you, I’m just trying to understand what your notion of salvation is, exactly.

Your brother,
Fiat

Jesus said one must be born again. That means we are to come to Christ with a repentent heart and ask Him to forgive us of our sins.We are then to speak and ask Jesus to come into our hearts and recieve His Spirit and proclaim He is the Lord of our life.Christ in turn gives us the Gift of Salvation right there and then and our names get written in the Book of Life… He fills us up with the Holy Spirit who now becomes our teacher, and our helper. With the Help of the Holy Spirit our lives become transformed into Christs on a dayly basis. We die to the old and the new begins to take over. This is a process. Salvation is only the first step.As we totally submitt to our Lord and obey what He says we become whom He called us to be. I hope this helps you understand where im coming from. God Bless.

 

[ahimsaman72]

AmyS:

Well, there is an age where Protestants obviously believe that a child should NOT be baptised so it was more than a fair question… Also, Protestants view baptisim differently than Catholics do… What, I don’t get is the need of Protestants to tell Catholics they believe they are wrong… It is like I told spokenword:

We have something you don’t… Let’s focus a little more on what we have in common… God bless!

My reason in making that statement was that you can’t specifically confine the expectation to any age - especially one that God Himself expects out of us. That’s my point.

I would agree that in the protestant mind, a 2 year old isn’t capable of reasoning well enough to accept/reject Christ. Their minds haven’t matured enough yet. But, to pick a certain age is kind of like saying that all 16 year olds drive well enough to be on the roads with us older and more mature folks!

Friend, this shouldn’t be about who has what - “we have something you don’t” is a rather childish me vs. you philosophy which I don’t adhere to. We both look to Christ as the Author and Finisher of our Faith and for that reason I can call you sister.

God bless…

 

[Fiat]

Dear SPOKENWORD:

Thank you for the explanation. I am wondering how your definition of salvation differs, if at all, from Mormonism or Jehovah Witness?

In faith,
Fiat

 

[Fiat]

Dear Ahimsaman72:

If our ability to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior depends on our ability to reason, as you suggest, then do you think that those people who are smarter than others have a better understanding of Christ since their reasoning skills are better? If salvation depends on the mental capacity of the individual believer, then don’t you turn salvation into a work of man?

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[mercygate]

Can’t say that I’ve heard that before. I could understand if he was the age of 4 or something, but I wouldn’t consider 9 to be too young at all. By the age of 9, children can reason and accept/reject.

I guess when we look at it this way, although there isn’t a certain age to be baptized, there is an age not to be - and that age has to be left up to the parents and pastor as to the extent of understanding that the child has.

. . . maybe the pastor knew something about this kid that the kid didn’t know himself. Maybe the pastor had good reason to ask him to wait . . .

 

[ahimsaman72]

Fiat:

Dear Ahimsaman72:

Regarding healing based on the faith of others, you overlooked Mark 2:1-6. Jesus sees the faith of those who brought the paralytic man to Him, and Jesus not only PHYSICALLY healed the paralytic, but He also SPIRITUALLY HEALED HIM, saying in Mark 2:10: “Child, your sins are forgiven.”

In Jesus and Mary,
Fiat

You answered your own self. You said, “Jesus sees the faith of those…”. I agree. This happened twice at least. The woman washing the feet of Christ with her tears was in the same boat. Jesus forgave sins not based on sickness or health, but based on matters of the heart which the passage points out.

1. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
2. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
3. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
4. Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
5. And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
6. Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
7. But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
8. I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

The point of this passage was that the Son of Man, Jesus has the power to forgive sins. I wouldn’t create a doctrine out of this passage.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Fiat:

Dear SPOKENWORD:

Thank you for the explanation. I am wondering how your definition of salvation differs, if at all, from Mormonism or Jehovah Witness?

In faith,
Fiat

I guess Fiat the problem is our understanding. I believe you have a problem understanding Christianity by your comment. God Bless.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Ahimsaman72:

The Mark passage very clearly shows the world that Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic based on the faith of others!

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

. . . maybe the pastor knew something about this kid that the kid didn’t know himself. Maybe the pastor had good reason to ask him to wait . . .

It really is a personal, individual decision that must be based on the individual and their basic knowledge. If a child/young person can’t grasp the idea of personal sin and the role Jesus played in dealing with that sin - then they really should receive further instruction.

 

[Fiat]

Dear SPOKENWORD:

I guess I find it a little odd that people who insist that salvation is just a matter of “belief” can never sufficiently explain what “belief” is or how they come to know what to believe in. If you reduce salvation to the act of “believing in Jesus,” then how do you address the fact that Muslims believe in Jesus Christ. Are they saved? Demons believe in Jesus Christ. Are they saved?

It seems that “true belief” is more than just accepting Jesus as your personal savior. True belief is faith that is obedient to the word of God. Therefore, I guess I wonder how someone can say he believes in Jesus when He denies that Jesus commanded us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. So many Non-catholics insist that baptism is nothing more than symbolic; that communion is nothing more than symbolic. Instead, they say, all you have to do is believe in Jesus and you will receive his salvation. I often wonder what these same people would say to the blind man whom Jesus healed in John 9. Jesus spit on some dirt, wiped the dirt on his eyes and then told him to wash. Once the man did that, he received his healing. Now, couldn’t Christ, being God, have healed that man simply by willing it to be so? Of course! But, Christ placed some responsibility in the hands of the blind man. The blind man did not receive his reward until he actually did what Christ told him to do. I often wonder if those who insist that baptism is unnecessary would also advise the blind man on the way to the Pool not to do what Christ told Him to do. I wonder if they too would say, “Don’t do what Jesus told you to do because then it becomes a work; all you need to do is believe that you have received Christ’s miracle, and you will have received it.”

In faith,
Fiat

 

[ahimsaman72]

Fiat:

Dear Ahimsaman72:

If our ability to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior depends on our ability to reason, as you suggest, then do you think that those people who are smarter than others have a better understanding of Christ since their reasoning skills are better? If salvation depends on the mental capacity of the individual believer, then don’t you turn salvation into a work of man?

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

Actually, contrary to my Baptist upbringing, I believe in the apocatastasis which is:

A name given in the history of theology to the doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls. (definition from newadvent.com)

This view was believed early on by some in the Catholic faith, especially, St. Gregory of Nyssa and Origen.

But, this goes beyond this thread. I’ve already begun a thread, entitled, “hell and everlasting punishment” in the apologetics forum to discuss that topic.

I don’t believe for one second that man of himself justifies and redeems himself. God is sovereign and by His grace are we all saved. I merely have pointed out the Baptist belief on this thread. I don’t bring this up often - as you can probably guess why. It’s heretical.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Fiat:

Dear Ahimsaman72:

The Mark passage very clearly shows the world that Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic based on the faith of others!

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

And from this one passage you can build a doctrine so fundamental to your Christian faith?? And protestants are accused of doing such things !

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Fiat:

Dear SPOKENWORD:

I guess I find it a little odd that people who insist that salvation is just a matter of “belief” can never sufficiently explain what “belief” is or how they come to know what to believe in. If you reduce salvation to the act of “believing in Jesus,” then how do you address the fact that Muslims believe in Jesus Christ. Are they saved? Demons believe in Jesus Christ. Are they saved?

It seems that “true belief” is more than just accepting Jesus as your personal savior. True belief is faith that is obedient to the word of God. Therefore, I guess I wonder how someone can say he believes in Jesus when He denies that Jesus commanded us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. So many Non-catholics insist that baptism is nothing more than symbolic; that communion is nothing more than symbolic. Instead, they say, all you have to do is believe in Jesus and you will receive his salvation. I often wonder what these same people would say to the blind man whom Jesus healed in John 9. Jesus spit on some dirt, wiped the dirt on his eyes and then told him to wash. Once the man did that, he received his healing. Now, couldn’t Christ, being God, have healed that man simply by willing it to be so? Of course! But, Christ placed some responsibility in the hands of the blind man. The blind man did not receive his reward until he actually did what Christ told him to do. I often wonder if those who insist that baptism is unnecessary would also advise the blind man on the way to the Pool not to do what Christ told Him to do. I wonder if they too would say, “Don’t do what Jesus told you to do because then it becomes a work; all you need to do is believe that you have received Christ’s miracle, and you will have received it.”

In faith,
Fiat

Fiat, You need to reread what I wrote, You are not understanding what I said. The truth in the pudding is living it. By the way Where in scripture does it say that one must recieve communion to be saved? Sure its an act of love,but just because I dont kiss you doesnt mean that I do not love you. God Bless.

 

[MariaG]

Hi ahimsaman72:wave:

I asked this of Spokenword, I would also like your take on it. Since records of the Early Church show that they believed in baptizing infants and in the regenerative nature of Baptism, had the church in 200ad already fallen into false teaching?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Fiat]

Dear SPOKENWORD:

I am glad we can agree that, as you say, “the truth in the pudding is living it.” The question is what is it that we are to live. I, as a Catholic know what I am to live. What do you as a non-catholic know what it is you are to live? And what is the bare minimum that must be lived in order to comply with your non-catholic understanding of salvation?

You lost me on the whole “kissing me” comment???

In faith,
Fiat

 

[MariaG]

Hi Spokenword:wave:

Okay, I’ll accept your answer as not being in error, but not necessary when it comes to baptizing infants. But what about the regenerative nature of Baptism. You said you think it is only a symbol. The Early Church taught otherwise. Did the Early Church teach falsehood about the regenerative nature of Baptism?

Also, would you see it necessary for an adult, who was baptized as an infant to be baptized again?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[ahimsaman72]

MariaG:

Hi ahimsaman72:wave:

I asked this of Spokenword, I would also like your take on it. Since records of the Early Church show that they believed in baptizing infants and in the regenerative nature of Baptism, had the church in 200ad already fallen into false teaching?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Hello friend.

Yes, a difficult question indeed. It is a question I cannot answer.
It’s a very good point, indeed.

What is puzzling is that since it is such a basic doctrine of the Christian faith and necessary for salvation (in the Catholic view) - it is not spoken of clearly throughout the writings of Peter, Paul and the other apostles.

 

[ahimsaman72]

MariaG:

Hi Spokenword:wave:

Okay, I’ll accept your answer as not being in error, but not necessary when it comes to baptizing infants. But what about the regenerative nature of Baptism. You said you think it is only a symbol. The Early Church taught otherwise. Did the Early Church teach falsehood about the regenerative nature of Baptism?

Also, would you see it necessary for an adult, who was baptized as an infant to be baptized again?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

I know it wasn’t intended for me, but I had to answer my own opinion here - if it was me and I doubted my baptism as an infant, I would be baptized as an adult as an affirmation of my commitment to follow Jesus Christ. He was baptized in water, and so would I like to be.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

MariaG:

Hi Spokenword:wave:

Okay, I’ll accept your answer as not being in error, but not necessary when it comes to baptizing infants. But what about the regenerative nature of Baptism. You said you think it is only a symbol. The Early Church taught otherwise. Did the Early Church teach falsehood about the regenerative nature of Baptism?

Also, would you see it necessary for an adult, who was baptized as an infant to be baptized again?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

My first baptism was at the age of 3months.I was rebaptised at the age of 52 by my free will. I wanted to experience what Jesus experienced during His baptism. It was a humbling experience that I could not find words possible to explain my emotions.I wish my catholic brothers and sisters could experience
what I did on that day.I know that is not possibile as a catholic and I know its not about feelings but this to me was real. All I know is that there is a Holy Spirit. God Bless.