Calgar,LOL
Do you have any proof that infants were not excluded?
Are you and Johnnyjones sharing posts now?
Jose,
Anna, I see you grew up in a S. Baptist Church, did you get baptised there and at what age? If so did you get rebaptised in the Anglican Church? Just curious how that worked.
Come on, Anna. I laughed because johnnyjones said that there was no proof that infants were not baptised. I responed to him by telling him there was no proof that they were. You then responed to my response by saying there was no proof that they weren’t. See? It was kind of funny.
If I may, while I personally dont see anything wrong with infant baptism, My opinion is that baptism should be understood fully before it is administered. Baptism is, IMHO a very personal devotion of an individual who wishes to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, who Himself was baptized as an adult. I feel that if a child understands the importance, then baptism is okay. Howver, if the parents want their baby baptized, then they should, as long as they understand the significance.
O.K. Calgar,
I can see the humor in that.And this is a major difference in how many view the act of being baptized. From a Catholic perspective, we believe that Baptism is a sacrament. This means that it is an act on God’s part to impart certain graces into our soul rather than a statement on behalf of an individual of a devotion or that one is a follower of Christ. There is real grace imparted which is signified by the outward sign. Our souls are really cleansed, as signified by the pouring of water. We really have died to sin and are raised to new life as is signified by immersion. Our souls are infused with supernatural life by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as is signified by the Holy Chrism (oil). A sacrament actually accomplishes spiritually what the outward signs signify. The same is true whether one is an adult or an infant.
batman1973,
Steve,
Because I’m pretty sure you already know the arguments, just as I know yours. Besides, these arguments come up time and time again.O.K. Calgar,
The reason I responded the way I did, is because I rarely see you ever actually provide any support your beliefs in a discussion.
Peace,
Anna
Calgar,
Likewise, I would ask, do you have any proof that infants were excluded?
Where in the Bible does it say that one must reach the age of reason or understanding prior to Baptism? And what is that age?
We know that whole households were Baptized as recorded in Acts and 1 Corinthians:
Acts 16 (ESV):
33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
1 Corinthians 1 (ESV):
16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
1 Corinthians 7 (ESV):
14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
Where in the Bible does it say that Baptism is a Church ordinance, and is only a symbolic act of obedience?
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. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
1 Peter 3:
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
Then there is the connection between circumcision and Baptism addressed in my post #76: When God spoke of the coming salvation, He said the uncircumcised will no longer come into Jerusalem:
Isaiah 52:1
Awake, awake,
put on your strength, O Zion;
put on your beautiful garments,
O Jerusalem, the holy city;
for there shall no more come into you
the uncircumcised and the unclean.
Colossians Chapter 2 tells us that Baptism is the circumcision of Christ, the circumcision made without hands.
Colossians 2: 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Male Jewish babies were circumcised when they were 8 days old, and their circumcision brought the women into the Old Covenant with God.
Through Christ, females are brought into the New Covenant, not through the circumcision of males, but through Baptism, the circumcision made without hands.
If infants were circumcised and brought into the Old Covenant with God; why would infants be excluded from the New Covenant? And if infants were to be excluded, wouldn’t Colossians be the perfect place to say infants are now excluded? Yet there is no such exclusion any place in the N.T. If male infants were circumcised at 8 days old, wouldn’t the circumcision made without hands also be for infants?
Calgar, it was very difficult for me to realize that what I had been taught in Southern Baptist Churches, since childhood, was not only inconsistent with the history of the early Church; but also inconsistent with Holy Scripture.
I welcome your comments.
Peace,
Anna
Calgar,Because I’m pretty sure you already know the arguments, just as I know yours. Besides, these arguments come up time and time again.
After about the 4th or 5th time you just kind of get lazy.
Matthew 19:13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; 14 but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
You got proof none were not babies? No.
The language used is inclusive. Prove it excludes babies.
In both the LCMS and WELS Lutheran churches, Baptism is also a sacrament - nothing less than the regeneration of our original-sin tainted selves, a means of grace given and commanded by God. It is a sign and seal of what God has done for us.
Really David? No you’re arguing that Jesus was baptising babies?
Nice one. I wonder how long we can keep going back and forth.
A lot more than those opposing it. Paul states baptizing households. It is not off-the-wall to believe young children or infants were part of the households,including slaves. The key is to present evidence when and where did Jews excluded young children as not being part of the household? That is the key for opposers to rebuke,not the whole baby argument.Nice one. I wonder how long we can keep going back and forth.
You got any proof there were babies? No.
Some of the earlier disputes concerning baptism regarded the question of whether or not one should wait 8 days (as was the case with circumcision) before baptizing a child. The implication is that the practice of infant baptism was present in the very early church, and the concept was not novel or contrary to apostolic teaching.
But here lies the issue with many non-Catholics. They do not accept historical sources outside the Bible.