An infant is Baptized into the Faith of the Church and of their parents and Godparents who speak for them. Remember that in the old covenant and infant only eight days old became a member of God’s chosen people by presentation and circumcision.Many Catholics were baptized when they were infants and yet as adults they are not leading Christian lives. Yet the church teaches infants baptized in a Catholic church are born again and are saved? How can someone be saved by water baptism and yet not profess faith in Jesus throughout their lives?
) Jesus did not say he that is baptized and then later on in life believes will be saved, but rather he that believes and is baptized shall be saved.MK 16:16
Also when Jesus commanded the apostles to go out into all the world and preach the gospel. He instructed the apostles to go into the world and "make disciples" (first) by teaching them and then baptizing them.
There is no where in scripture where infants were baptized by the apostles. Only those **who believed** on the Lord and the gospel preached to them were baptized.
One poster spoke of what faith is necessary for salvation? Certainly a casual reading of the New Testament will show that the faith that saves is a faith that trusts in Jesus Christ for one's salvation. For faith comes by hearing or reading the gospel. One cannot be saved apart from believing the gospel of Christ. Infants are incapable of **that kind** of faith. And that is the kind of faith that truly saves a soul.While there is no specific verse in scripture supporting infant baptism, there is plenty of evidence to support the practice. The following passages of scripture should be of help in this regard.
Please see Br. Rich’s post again. He’s got a great answer there.
Do you really believe that the death of an infant means that the infant will be separated from God forever? Scripture says that God desires that all men* be saved.[1 Tim 2:4]*
I see, you are also adding the words “in that exact order” to Jesus’s “and” statement. Hey, no problem!
In closing this is an Anabaptist rebuttal to a Catholic statement and nothing more. I am not trying to convert or imply that one faith is better than another. I welcome discussion.Hello JustCatholic (like saying “just lucky”
Also - why is it, that it’s okay to decide the following for children:
which school to attend So they can get the best education possible
which sunday school to attend So they learn about Jesus and his love for them
whom and what to believe or trust To teach them who and what will nurture or hurt them
day care or not If Mom has to work some days
what to eat, wear so their bodies will be warm and nourished
what books to read So they fill their heads with knowledge and not junk
which movies to see Again so they fill their heads with knowledge and not junk
etc etc etc…
But to administer Jesus via the sacrament of Baptism?? Ohhh, Noooo, that’s so different. Gotta wait for them to be full adults for something like that! Hold back on the Jesus!
Or rather wait until an age when they can understand the commitment that they are making. All the things we just listed are in some way a preparation for this. Yes I am a “Born Again” and I remember the day I became a Christian. I remember years later when I was baptized into the church. I also remember my parents preparing me along the way to make those decisions and telling me exactly what they mean. When I made the decision to become a Christian I did so (and continue to do so) of my own free will.
The word “confirmation” seems to denote that one is confirming a decision that has been made, I ask at what point was the individual responsible for the decision. When first baptized? I don’t think so. Keeping in mind that no infant can understand the decision that his parents are making for him why imply this? Moreover why imply that salvation is dependant on another human making a decision on your behalf? A basic understanding of psychology lets one know that we value our own decision over those made for us so why stack the deck against the child?
Here is the clincher for me. My wifes family is Catholic. Her and her siblings were all baptized as infants. She is the only one that is still a practicing Catholic. Part of this I believe is because they never made the choice to take that path. Now their children will be baptized only to please my mother in law and all those decisions mentioned before will be geared to Buddhism or pretty much agnosticism. Looking at the track record I think I’ll stick with teaching my child that the decision is his. Ownership of our faith is a stronger thing than I think you give credit for.
Can you see the Protestant case being just a little contradictory? Not one bit
So your Anabaptist rebuttal (your label) as to why selective deprivation is all okay, had nothing of Scriptural backing - and the clincher for you, is your anecdotal observation of your wife’s family and your new definition of baptism.
"
When Jesus gave the great commission to his disciples, he didn't just instruct them to go out and baptize everyone. No, if you read carefully his words, our Lord said to go out and preach the gospel and then **teach them** what he taught the apostles. Then after they were taught the word of the gospel, they were to be baptized.
This command by our Lord to his apostles could not possibly be applied to infants, because they are and were incapable of understanding the gospel message and could not be taught to be disciples. It is true God saves us by grace, but how is that grace is revealed? Eph 2:8 says we are saved by grace **through** faith. Faith is the means by which God grants us his grace. If men did not have to respond to anything of God's grace, then all would be automatically saved. Hence, universal salvation would then be true, which it is not.