Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[adrift]

Tell that to her, it’s only her child that by no fault of hers was miscarried.

A woman even posted (Catholic) saying she’s sure her baby is in Heaven, and was assured by her Priest.

You need to reread what was written. It was a man not a woman. He does not say that he was assured by a priest but states that is what is taught by the Church which it is not. It was a still birth not a miscarriage.

 

[Church_Militant]

By the way, immersion is not commanded anywhere in the Word of God and though it is certainly acceptable, the early church says they didn’t use it exclusively. Notice the following documentation from the New Testament era Didache.

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

dskysmine:

The abortion argument was one I raised, as an absurd argument against their faulty logic, not because it is a “good” argument.
I already explained this and it wasn’t “QNDNNDQDCE” that raised it.

Thanks for the correction. I agree, we (and main line Protestants) have a fundamental difference with the SBC. They deny Sacramental Baptism, which is a core Christian belief. That is very regrettable. However, they do share some of our values.

 

[Cathoholic]

• Being BORN from above
• Being BORN again (anew)
• Being BORN of water and the Spirit

Three ways of saying the same thing.

“Born” at least suggests infant language. Yes an adult who has never been Baptized can be born again so I do not mean to imply Baptism as exclusive to infants.

King David (just like you and I) was brought forth with original sin (“I was brought forth in iniquity”). Yet something spiritually significant went on in David even when he was an infant and even though he probably could not recall a “Spirit-filled experience” with what ever occurred (he may be referring to his circumcision in Psalm 22, or something else but it was certainly something spiritually significant that occurred).

PSALM 51:5 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

PSALM 22:9-10 9 Yet thou art he who took me from the womb; thou didst keep me safe upon my mother’s breasts. 10 Upon thee was I cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me thou hast been my God.

 

[onenow1]

Matthew 28​

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”​

Mark 10:13-16.
13 And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” 16 And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them.​

Acts 2: 38-40
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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” 40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”

Read more: ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp#ixzz2n661LhXZ

About 3000 were baptized, wouldn’t it seem almost impossible there would be no children to baptize.

God Bless All
onenow1

 

[Randy_Carson]

About 3000 were baptized, wouldn’t it seem almost impossible there would be no children to baptize.

:newidea:

Acts 2:40-41
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

If three thousand people accepted Peter’s message and were baptized in a single day, that means that each Apostle would have had to baptize 250 people. Since Peter began preaching around 9:00am, even if they had 12 hours of daylight, they would have baptized 20 people an hour - one every three minutes.

Now, you can argue that each Apostle had a couple of minutes to question each person carefully to make sure that he or she fully understood and believed the gospel message AS BAPTISTS INSIST or you can assume that when the crowd queued up, the Apostles simply starting dunking everyone who wanted to receive the sacrament.

Personally, I don’t think there was time for extensive catechesis and for careful examination of every believer. The numbers alone suggest that baptism was considered so important, that the Apostles baptized first and asked questions later.

If that is the case, then the argument against infant baptism is dead because while it can be argued that the people believed first and then got baptized, the apostles would not have time to VERIFY that faith; they baptized anyone presented to them for baptism regardless of the accuracy and depth of their faith. Thus, infants could be baptized with the same efficacy as an adult with a false understanding of the gospel.

Thoughts?

 

[Porknpie]

Lily -

Appreciate your reply to post 303.

PnP

 

[dronald]

:newidea:

Acts 2:40-41
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

If three thousand people accepted Peter’s message and were baptized in a single day, that means that each Apostle would have had to baptize 250 people. Since Peter began preaching around 9:00am, even if they had 12 hours of daylight, they would have baptized 20 people an hour - one every three minutes.

Now, you can argue that each Apostle had a couple of minutes to question each person carefully to make sure that he or she fully understood and believed the gospel message AS BAPTISTS INSIST or you can assume that when the crowd queued up, the Apostles simply starting dunking everyone who wanted to receive the sacrament.

Personally, I don’t think there was time for extensive catechesis and for careful examination of every believer. The numbers alone suggest that baptism was considered so important, that the Apostles baptized first and asked questions later.

If that is the case, then the argument against infant baptism is dead because while it can be argued that the people believed first and then got baptized, the apostles would not have time to VERIFY that faith; they baptized anyone presented to them for baptism regardless of the accuracy and depth of their faith. Thus, infants could be baptized with the same efficacy as an adult with a false understanding of the gospel.

Thoughts?

Interesting theory, but the text remains; “Those who accepted his message were baptized” and infants could not accept his message.

As for the rest, even Paul states he’s glad that he only baptized a couple of people. You would think he wouldn’t care what they would say about him, but he says “I’m glad I didn’t baptize anyone else.” Doesn’t sound so urgent now does it?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Interesting theory, but the text remains; “Those who accepted his message were baptized” and infants could not accept his message.

As for the rest, even Paul states he’s glad that he only baptized a couple of people. You would think he wouldn’t care what they would say about him, but he says “I’m glad I didn’t baptize anyone else.” Doesn’t sound so urgent now does it?

This is so… minimalistic…

 

[James82]

Interesting theory, but the text remains; “Those who accepted his message were baptized” and infants could not accept his message.

As for the rest, even Paul states he’s glad that he only baptized a couple of people. You would think he wouldn’t care what they would say about him, but he says “I’m glad I didn’t baptize anyone else.” Doesn’t sound so urgent now does it?

Naughty Protestant!! Get back to Mass! No more silly questions!

 

[adrift]

Interesting theory, but the text remains; “Those who accepted his message were baptized” and infants could not accept his message.

As for the rest, even Paul states he’s glad that he only baptized a couple of people. You would think he wouldn’t care what they would say about him, but he says “I’m glad I didn’t baptize anyone else.” Doesn’t sound so urgent now does it?

Isaiah45_9 is right this is minimalistic.

Yes it says those who accepted his message but what it doesn’t say is that only those who could accept the message could be baptized. The ones being spoken about are those he was preaching too. It doesn’t address children at all.

“Interesting theory”? One for which you don’t seem to have an adequate answer

 

[dronald]

Isaiah45_9 is right this is minimalistic.

Yes it says those who accepted his message but what it doesn’t say is that only those who could accept the message could be baptized. The ones being spoken about are those he was preaching too. It doesn’t address children at all.

“Interesting theory”? One for which you don’t seem to have an adequate answer

It’s a fine answer. To be fair, the text says what it says and if I were to quote it word for word you would say I’m wrong.

I’m saying what the text says and it’s that, “those who accepted his message were Baptized.” Why is it that every time Baptism is mentioned Catholics feel the need to come up with theories on how infants were included? That is one of the longest reads on a simple passage. I’m not saying that we absolutely have to deny infant Baptism based on this one particular passage saying those who accepted the message were Baptized; what I’m saying is that this one is awful if trying to prove infant Baptism.

I would recommend the household Baptism passage, that one’s more convincing. I don’t agree with the CC’s interpretation of it, but it’s far more open to interpretation.

 

[Cathoholic]

Acts 2 is quite Catholic (for adults being Baptized for the first and only time).

ACTS 2:38-39a 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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children . . .

And concerning “those who accepted his message were Baptized”; we as Catholics see this lived out at the Easter Vigil Mass (and other times).

The Catholic Church frequently Baptizes unbaptized adults (“those who accept his message”). But you cannot conclude from this that the Catholic Church therefore excludes infants from Baptism too.

We Baptize both unbaptized adults (who repent, believe, and “rise”), and unbaptized infants (whose parents Covenant their infants to God and also give public proclamation and promise to raise these infants in the faith).

Does Acts 2 suggest infant Baptism?

I think it does, but it certainly at least assumes it.

Why does Acts 2 suggest or assume an infant inclusion concerning Baptism?

Since that answer is longer, I will include it on my next post (I will probably do that post tomorrow).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It’s a fine answer. To be fair, the text says what it says and if I were to quote it word for word you would say I’m wrong.

I’m saying what the text says and it’s that, “those who accepted his message were Baptized.” Why is it that every time Baptism is mentioned Catholics feel the need to come up with theories on how infants were included? That is one of the longest reads on a simple passage. I’m not saying that we absolutely have to deny infant Baptism based on this one particular passage saying those who accepted the message were Baptized; what I’m saying is that this one is awful if trying to prove infant Baptism.

I would recommend the household Baptism passage, that one’s more convincing. I don’t agree with the CC’s interpretation of it, but it’s far more open to interpretation.

Theories? Bah… It’s Church history and a practice that has been in the Church since its inception - that means Pentecost, btw. Just because you want to do the minimal and want every little thing to be spelled out exactly and specifically in the Bible doesn’t make it so… This is on the conscience of those who hinder the children, including infants, to come to Christ.

This is the Symbolic Gospel of Fundamentalists.

Baptism is symbolic, Eucharist is symbolic, Confession is symbolic, guess what - let’s hope that hell is symbolic as well…

Why on earth would baptism be compared with circumcision?

Who was circumcised? 8 year old infants and also the adults who came into the Old Covenant.

The promise is for you and for your children - households were baptized.

There is no record against the practice for more than 1,500 years - even Calvin and Luther agreed with the practice…

No, no, no… let’s rather believe the deceiver - it’s not really necessary - nothing is really necessary anymore, it’s all symbolic. Welcome to post-Christianity - the aberration of post-modernism and symbolic Christianity, where words are destroyed and religion is ignored and history is optional.

Let the Children Come to Me **Luke 18:15 ****Now they were bringing even infants (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha) to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they **rebuked them. **16 **But Jesus called them to him, saying, **“Let the children come to me, and **do not hinder them, **for to such belongs the kingdom of God. **17 ****Truly, I say to you, whoever does not **receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

Brephos - Strong’s G1025

 

[dskysmine]

It’s a fine answer. To be fair, the text says what it says and if I were to quote it word for word you would say I’m wrong.

I’m saying what the text says and it’s that, “those who accepted his message were Baptized.” Why is it that every time Baptism is mentioned Catholics feel the need to come up with theories on how infants were included? That is one of the longest reads on a simple passage. I’m not saying that we absolutely have to deny infant Baptism based on this one particular passage saying those who accepted the message were Baptized; what I’m saying is that this one is awful if trying to prove infant Baptism.

I would recommend the household Baptism passage, that one’s more convincing. I don’t agree with the CC’s interpretation of it, but it’s far more open to interpretation.

Thank you very much for ignoring my last 3 posts… very Christian of you.

Also, what do baptists say about adults that cannot “accept His message”? People with Mental disabilities, or under coma, or others. Some of which might have had a period in their lives where they could reason, others not.

 

[dronald]

Thank you very much for ignoring my last 3 posts… very Christian of you.
.

This statement was very ironic of you.

 

[dronald]

Acts 2 is quite Catholic (for adults being Baptized for the first and only time).

ACTS 2:38-39a 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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children . . .

And concerning “those who accepted his message were Baptized”; we as Catholics see this lived out at the Easter Vigil Mass (and other times).

The Catholic Church frequently Baptizes unbaptized adults (“those who accept his message”). But you cannot conclude from this that the Catholic Church therefore excludes infants from Baptism too.

We Baptize both unbaptized adults (who repent, believe, and “rise”), and unbaptized infants (whose parents Covenant their infants to God and also give public proclamation and promise to raise these infants in the faith).

Does Acts 2 suggest infant Baptism?

I think it does, but it certainly at least assumes it.

Why does Acts 2 suggest or assume an infant inclusion concerning Baptism?

Since that answer is longer, I will include it on my next post (I will probably do that post tomorrow).

Thank you, this was though provoking.

Doesn’t acts 2:39 concern the gift of the Holy Spirit being promised to people everywhere whom God calls?

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

I’m interested in why the Holy Spirit landed on those who believed before Baptism in Acts 10?

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Let the Children Come to Me **Luke 18:15 ****Now they were bringing even infants (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha) to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they **rebuked them. **16 **But Jesus called them to him, saying, **“Let the children come to me, and **do not hinder them, **for to such belongs the kingdom of God. **17 ****Truly, I say to you, whoever does not **receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

Why would a child need to be Baptized if the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as them? That’s the whole issue here is that children are not held accountable for their parents sin when they die. They have no knowledge of right and wrong and Jesus clearly says that they go to Heaven in what you’ve quoted here.

Also, what do baptists say about adults that cannot “accept His message”? People with Mental disabilities, or under coma, or others. Some of which might have had a period in their lives where they could reason, others not.

They have no knowledge between good and evil and won’t be held accountable by God for it. They shouldn’t be condemned to hell for all of eternity (or limbo) because they were born unable to learn of Baptism, or anything for that matter.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why would a child need to be Baptized if the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as them? That’s the whole issue here is that children are not held accountable for their parents sin when they die. They have no knowledge of right and wrong and Jesus clearly says that they go to Heaven in what you’ve quoted here.

So, you don’t believe in original sin?

And we are to ignore what Christ said?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Let me guess… He didn’t really meant that… :banghead:

 

[dronald]

So, you don’t believe in original sin?

And we are to ignore what Christ said?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Let me guess… He didn’t really meant that… :banghead:

Interesting. Can you show me in the discussion with Nicodemus what makes you think the “being born of water” part points to Baptism? The entire discussion doesn’t say anything of Baptism.

Secondly, what does it mean to be born of Spirit then? How might one be born of Spirit?

Thanks.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Interesting. Can you show me in the discussion with Nicodemus what makes you think the “being born of water” part points to Baptism? The entire discussion doesn’t say anything of Baptism.

Secondly, what does it mean to be born of Spirit then? How might one be born of Spirit?

Thanks.

Long read but worth it:

From the CCC:
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

*1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 (This reference is to John 3:5) He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
*
The Baptism of infants

*1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53*

Do you believe in original sin?