Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[AmbroseSJ]

Scitor:

You do not have verses showing infant baptism or suggesting infant baptism. I clearly showed without doubt that each instance household is used it was followed by stating the household first believed.

Yes, without doubt, the head of the household first believed. We can definitely agree with you here.

But due to your prejudice AGAINST infant baptism, you fail to consider the implications of saying all in household were baptized. Even today, the US Census Bureau would consider everyone; baby, children, Aunts and Uncles, grandparents, IOW, everyone that lives in one household to be members of that household.

Therefore when the inspired writers say that after one key person’s conversion everyone in that household was baptized, he is also showing the custom of the day (not too unlike our own day) whereby the head of a household will make decisions for everyone in that household, INCLUDING THEIR RELIGION. It is only in our dysfunctional modern liberal society here in the West, that we exempt religion from a household’s unity. (Brought about, no doubt, by the SBC style notion that children can not be Baptized.) The head of the household decides everyone shall be educated, and all the children are educated. Or decides that everyone shall go to the Memorial day parade, and they all go. They shall all be covered by health insurance, they shall all exchange gifts at Christmas Etc. etc.

In the Early Church, households were united by Religion as well. Yes, there are exceptions, when we have one spouse being pagan and the other Christian. That is why IT IS SO IMPORTANT when the Apostle says the whole household was baptized. IOW, the head of the household would see to it that everyone was raised Christian, beginning with their baptism — just as the Jewish household would do the same with circumcision of infants. The one flowed naturally into the other. Circumcision was the type for the Sacrament which was to come under the New Covenant.

What happens in today’s SBC world? Children grow up and are never baptized. I’ve seen it in my own family. My sister (a baptized ex-Catholic fundamentalist) frets because her son, now married and about to have children of his own, is not baptized and therefore has never been “born again”. (Meaning accepting Jesus has his personal Lord and Savior.) The “heritage” and evil consequences of no infant baptism is spread.

There’s a sanctifying grace that comes with Baptism, and nothing else. That is what the SBC wishes to deny to children and infants.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Case for Infant Baptism

1. The Church was given all authority to bind and loose on earth; “all authority” includes the authority to baptize infants.
2. No verse of scripture explicitly forbids the baptism of infants. (ie, Thou shalt not…)
3. Baptism is called the “circumcision of Christ”. Circumcision was the ritual of initiation by which Jewish parents brought their children into the Old Covenant; baptism is the ritual of initiation by which Christian parents bring their children into the Church.
4. Numerous passages in the New Testament reveal that whole households were baptized (one after midnight); it is likely that these households included children below the age of reason.
5. Historical evidence shows that the early Church practiced infant baptism.

 

[YADA]

Jazz…did you not read my previous post. I clearly showed through scripture that in each instance where household is mentioned, scripture goes on to state that those in the household believed first and then were baptized. The argument that households included infants has been thoroughly rebuffed.

And the argument that you, Randy, and Porknpie use…“the bible does not say you cannot baptize infants,” is an invalid argument. It holds absolutely no weight. Think about it.

Actually you did not - at best you described the head of the household believing and then - based on their belief and position as the head of the household - the entire household is baptized … which is exactly what people here also read in the passages … You take that to mean that 100 percent of all baptized in those households also first professed their personal belief - but the passages do not indicate that fact - nor do they list the persons by name that comprise the totality of the household …

You Sir are reading into the passages your interpretation - some 2000 years after the fact - ignoring the historical practice and belief [of which you started this thread with a false premise - which many have disputed with facts and ask you to comment on and which you sir have ignored] - and we are just supposed to say - Golly gee - you are right wonder why no one ever explained this before

Your ability to read and understand the scriptures is no better than another’s and probably less then many …which is why Sola Scriptura fails -

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Jazz…did you not read my previous post. I clearly showed through scripture that in each instance where household is mentioned, scripture goes on to state that those in the household believed first and then were baptized. The argument that households included infants has been thoroughly rebuffed.

And the argument that you, Randy, and Porknpie use…“the bible does not say you cannot baptize infants,” is an invalid argument. It holds absolutely no weight. Think about it.

First, the argument may be rebuffed, but certainly not refuted. See my response below.

Second, you haven’t responded to my post. I asked you: how would you sketch out the argument for your protesting view that it is more reasonable to conclude that infant baptism (the preexisting conviction the CC and EOC held by Scripture and Tradition in the Church) is positively contrary to God’s will and must be abandoned completely?

Third, I thought about it: Catholics don’t subscribe to sola scriptura. So why IS the fact that “‘the bible does not say you cannot baptize infants,’ is an invalid argument” for one who does not hold SS?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Do the “Household Baptisms” Justify Infant Baptism? by Caleb Colley, M.L.A.

On occasion, advocates of infant baptism appeal to Acts 10, Acts 16, and 1 Corinthians 1 for proof that infant baptism is scriptural. Acts 10:24-48 relates the account of Cornelius and his “relatives and close friends” hearing the Gospel and being baptized. Acts 16 includes the accounts of two sets of baptisms: (1) the baptism of the members of Lydia’s family (verse 15); and (2) the baptism of the Philippian jailer and “all his family” (verse 33). Paul revealed that he baptized members of the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16). These are the so-called “household baptisms” (see Coffman, 1977, p. 320; Mare, 1984, pp. 192-193). Proponents of infant baptism assume that there were children in Cornelius’ house, Lydia’s family, the jailer’s house, and Stephanas’ house, and that the infants were baptized. Since there is no mention of infants in any of these passages, those who use these passages to justify infant baptism base their claims upon two assumptions: (1) infants were present in the households; and (2) the contexts of Acts 10 and 16 allow for the baptism of infants as part of “household baptisms.”

Catholic proponents hold that the narrative does not positively exclude infants. Further we do not hold that infant baptism is derived sola scriptura anyway. We hold infant baptism is not proscribed by any NT author.

In each example of “household baptism,” the people who were baptized were ones who had been taught what they needed to do in order to receive salvation (Acts 10:34-43; 16:14, 32; 1 Corinthians 1:16-18; 16:15-16). They were the people who could hear and understand the Word of God (Acts 10:44), believe (10:31-33), and devote themselves to the ministry of the saints (1 Corinthians 16:15). The absence of the noun “belief,” and the verb “believe,” in some of the conversion accounts, does not necessarily imply that the ones who were baptized did not, or could not, believe. Also, the context of the household conversions does not demand that any infants were baptized. Yet, some insist that infants must have been present in the “households,” and that the infants must have been baptized.

No, some insist that infants are not positively excluded from the households and that the narrative context does not demand that they are. And he’s right: forms of the word “believe” are not in some of the accounts.

Lydia did not live in Philippi (she was from Thyatira, on the other side of the Aegean Sea). Since she was traveling, she probably did not bring her children with her, if she had any. Because oikos seems to denote “property” in this instance, it was probably Lydia’s servants who were baptized (Lydia certainly was wealthy enough to have servants; see Jackson, 2000, pp. 201-02; Lenski, 1944, p. 660). Notice also that, in the case of Lydia’s conversion, the evangelists spoke to a group of women who had “come together,” indicating that the members of Lydia’s household could have been found within that group of women (the very group who was praying and who heard Paul’s message; see Coffman, 1977, p. 313; Lenski, 1944, p. 659).

The text also states that Paul and companions stayed in her “home” (16:15)–same word oikos. Children could certainly reside there. Well-to-do people then did have more than one home.

Some allege that Lydia’s family members were baptized, not because they believed, but only because they were in Lydia’s family, while Lydia herself did believe (e.g., Barnes, 1972, p. 241). This allegation rests on the fact that Acts 16:14-15 denotes Lydia’s belief, but does not specifically reveal that her family believed. The Bible clearly teaches, however, that belief must precede baptism (see Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37; Romans 10:10-11; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Ephesians 1:21), and that a sinner cannot be forgiven of sin based on the faith of another (Matthew 12:36; Romans 14:12; 1 Peter 2:7; 4:5; 1 John 3:23).

OK, so since the passage in question admittedly does not state that the family members believed first, the author then goes to NT passages which are supposed to mandate belief first before baptism. Do they? No, they do not. Mk 16:16 speaks about people past the age of reason the apostles are ordered to preach to who can understand–infants are not excluded from baptism. AA 8:37 gives the account of the Ethiopian eunuch and does not mandate adult only baptism. Rm 10:10-11 is speaking about adults and does not even mention baptism. 1 Cor 1:21 is true–and it proscribes infant baptism where? Eph 1:21, huh?

None of these texts proscribe infant baptism or mandate belief first before baptism for every last human being, i.e, infants.

Catholics don’t believe that the sins of infants who are baptized are forgiven due to the faith of their parents.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Furthermore, Acts 16:34 (part of the account of a “household baptism”) reports that the Philippian jailer’s family, at the time of the “household baptism,” was made up entirely of “believers” (excluding infants), and the accounts of both Cornelius’ and the jailer’s conversions specifically indicate that candidates for baptism were those who had “heard the word” (Acts 10:44,47). When inspired writers wrote about “hearing” the Word of God, “hearing” often denoted not only the recognition of audible sounds, of which infants are capable, but also understanding the message, of which infants are incapable (see Deuteronomy 5:1; Romans 10:17; Job 13:17; Luke 14:35). The contexts of Acts 10 and Acts 16 imply that meaning of the verb “hear” (akouo).

The account does (16:32) not state that the jailers’s family “heard” (akouo) the word of God, only that it was spoken. Infants are in church all the time while the word is spoken.

You have to show how it is impossible for this statement (v34) to be made if there were infants in the house. Even on your premise that only those above the age of reason were baptized and, say, one infant happened to be excluded, the statement in v34 would still be true. It does not say “every last individual member of the household rejoiced in having made a conscious act of faith.”

Also in v 34 oikos clearly means “home.”

There are other examples of household conversions, whose contexts attest to the fact that, when “households” of people were baptized, infants were not baptized. When the inspired writers mentioned the so-called “household baptisms,” they said that all believers in the households were baptized.

What! The NT authors do not say “all believers in the households were baptized.” It is the precipitous contention of the author of this article that they meant “all believers in the households were baptized.” Yet he has not demonstrated this is required by the narrative at all.

He also neglects to comment in detail on one of those other examples, 1 Cor 1:16, which says in the text nothing more than “I baptized the household of Stephanas also.”

To assert otherwise is to put an unnecessary strain on the text, and to teach that which contradicts unambiguous, definitive Bible teaching (see Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37-38; Romans 10:10-11).

Actually to assert that the NT authors proscribe infant baptism is straining the text, the narrative, and credibility.

 

[Scitor]

Therefore when the inspired writers say that after one key person’s conversion everyone in that household was baptized, he is also showing the custom of the day (not too unlike our own day) whereby the head of a household will make decisions for everyone in that household, INCLUDING THEIR RELIGION. It is only in our dysfunctional modern liberal society here in the West, that we exempt religion from a household’s unity. (Brought about, no doubt, by the SBC style notion that children can not be Baptized.)

Um…I do not think the SBC or the belief in believers baptism (i.e. infants should not be baptized). This is a very far stretch. And just look at the geographics/demographics. The much more Catholic northeast east is far more liberal than the south/southeast which is far more Protestant.

And…having been raised in a Southern Baptist home, I can tell you religion (relationship with Christ) is every bit a part of our family unity.

[QUOTEWhat happens in today’s SBC world? Children grow up and are never baptized. I’ve seen it in my own family. My sister (a baptized ex-Catholic fundamentalist) frets because her son, now married and about to have children of his own, is not baptized and therefore has never been “born again”. (Meaning accepting Jesus has his personal Lord and Savior.) The “heritage” and evil consequences of no infant baptism is spread.
[/QUOTE]

I would say your sister is very much misinformed as a fundamentalist. Fundamentalist to not believe baptism has anything to do with being “born again.” Baptism is a public display/symbol that one has been born again. The moment one accepts Christ as their Lord and Savior, it is in that moment they are “born again.”

There’s a sanctifying grace that comes with Baptism, and nothing else. That is what the SBC wishes to deny to children and infants.

Ambrose…please…the SBC does not wish to deny any infant sanctifying grace. It is not ours to give and no act we do will bring or not bring God’s grace. Think about what you just said. God is no respecter of men. Are we to tell God who he will give grace to and when? Lastly, we in the SBC dedicate our children to Christ as infants. Is it your belief that these children do not have the sanctifying grace of Christ?

 

[Scitor]

Catholics say, “Amen!” No one can take your salvation away from you.

Of course, a person can simply walk away from or reject the gift. Boatloads of scriptures show that to be true.

This is were we separate a bit. I do not believe that anyone who has truly accepted Christ can choose to walk away. I do not think we give enough credit to God or truly understand the power of God when he calls one to the family (i.e. when one is saved).

This is a totally different topic, but somewhat related. When you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, you lose a bit of your “free will.” A very simple example of this would be wanted something you know is forbidden, getting within in inches of taking it, and at the last minute you just can’t bring your self to take it.

So your salvation is not something you can walk away from. When one is saved he truly is a changed person.

 

[YADA]

… Fundamentalist to not believe baptism has anything to do with being “born again.” Baptism is a public display/symbol that one has been born again. The moment one accepts Christ as their Lord and Savior, it is in that moment they are “born again.”

This accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior taking the place or substituting for baptism is not based on scripture - in anyway shape or form … of course neither is the “Sinners Prayer” … echos of the Traditions of Men … centuries later …

Ambrose…please…the SBC does not wish to deny any infant sanctifying grace. It is not ours to give and no act we do will bring or not bring God’s grace. Think about what you just said. God is no respecter of men. Are we to tell God who he will give grace to and when? Lastly, we in the SBC dedicate our children to Christ as infants. Is it your belief that these children do not have the sanctifying grace of Christ?

Perhaps God is not a respecter of men - but God does respect and protect His Church … Jesus promised it - and plainly so -

 

[Scitor]

This accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior taking the place or substituting for baptism is not based on scripture - in anyway shape or form … of course neither is the “Sinners Prayer” … echos of the Traditions of Men … centuries later …

YADA…please read Galatians and Ephesians. Salvation is a gift from God and baptism is not required.

As far as “this accepting Christ thing,” are you saying that Catholics do not need to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior? That just by being born Catholic, being baptized as an infant, and going to CCE class it’s a done deal you are going to Heaven? I would argue that for all Christians, no matter the religion, there comes a point in ones life they make a decision to accept that Christ is Lord or he is not. I would say that there will be many Catholics that have been falsely lead to believing they will get to heaven purely because they are Catholic and because they followed/did certain acts/held to certain traditions. Unless their is relationship with Christ there can be no salvation.

As far as the Sinner’s Prayer, as Southern Baptist, we do not believe it is the prayer itself that “saves” you. Instead, it is ones faith, assurance, and hope in Christ via believing the gospel that only through faith and trust in what Christ has done on the cross where he bore our sins and died with them can we be saved from God’s righteous judgment. People must repent of their sins and believe the gospel. So it is not the prayer, but the condition of your heart and the true acknowledgement and acceptance that Christ is the one true and only Lord. It is at this point where one calls out to God acknowledging they are a sinner, repents, and accepts Christ as Savior they are saved once and for all. So you can call the prayer whatever you like…Sinner’s prayer, Acceptance prayer, Saving prayer, it really doesn’t matter.

And, you are correct, we must never make the Sinner’s prayer a tradition or lead one to believe that just by saying a prayer they are saved. And I will say the same thing about the SBC as I did above about Catholics. I am sure that there have been many Baptist that have been led into believing they have been saved simply because they said a prayer. Unless God has called you, you acknowledge you are a sinner, and there is a true conversion of your heart (accepting Christ is Lord), there can be no salvation.

Perhaps God is not a respecter of men - but God does respect and protect His Church … Jesus promised it - and plainly so -

I totally agree

 

[Cathoholic]

Hello Scitor.

You came out in your original post saying how infant Baptism was unhistorical using an apparent ancient law not concerning infant Baptism but rather concerning . . . . RE-Baptism.

I looked for many pages when other posters showed you that your history was just plain wrong (admittedly I did not read all 11 pages yet).

Did you give these historical “proofs” to your claim about infant Baptism being unhistorical (or admit you were wrong and that infant Baptism WAS practiced in the early Church)?

I am not challenging this position of yours (yet), I just want to make sure I didn’t miss a key post of yours. I’ll try to read all 11 pages tomorrow.

I also saw you suggested, “Repent and be baptized” concerns Baptismal instruction and thus eliminated infants as baptismal candidates based upon this assertion (is that correct)?

ACTS 2:38 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.

With the verse laid out before us . . . .

. . . . is St. Peter here in Acts 2:38. . . .

A. Preaching the Gospel to his ADULT hearers at the time?
B. Giving COMPLETE Catechetical Instruction on ELIGIBILITY for Baptism here?
C. Both?
D. Neither (please give alternative answer if neither)?

Before answering this question above, please go back and read verses before and after Acts 2:38 so you have the proper context (as I will ask about that when we delve deeper into this verse).

Thank you in advance.

Cathoholic

PS. Incidentally. I am not suggesting St. Peter is preaching ALL of the Gospel above in choice A (with his preaching that was recorded in Acts 2). I am just suggesting he was “preaching the Gospel”.

 

[JamesTheJust]

YADA…please read Galatians and Ephesians. Salvation is a gift from God and baptism is not required.

As far as “this accepting Christ thing,” are you saying that Catholics do not need to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior? That just by being born Catholic, being baptized as an infant, and going to CCE class it’s a done deal you are going to Heaven? I would argue that for all Christians, no matter the religion, there comes a point in ones life they make a decision to accept that Christ is Lord or he is not. I would say that there will be many Catholics that have been falsely lead to believing they will get to heaven purely because they are Catholic and because they followed/did certain acts/held to certain traditions. Unless their is relationship with Christ there can be no salvation.

As far as the Sinner’s Prayer, as Southern Baptist, we do not believe it is the prayer itself that “saves” you. Instead, it is ones faith, assurance, and hope in Christ via believing the gospel that only through faith and trust in what Christ has done on the cross where he bore our sins and died with them can we be saved from God’s righteous judgment. People must repent of their sins and believe the gospel. So it is not the prayer, but the condition of your heart and the true acknowledgement and acceptance that Christ is the one true and only Lord. It is at this point where one calls out to God acknowledging they are a sinner, repents, and accepts Christ as Savior they are saved once and for all. So you can call the prayer whatever you like…Sinner’s prayer, Acceptance prayer, Saving prayer, it really doesn’t matter.

And, you are correct, we must never make the Sinner’s prayer a tradition or lead one to believe that just by saying a prayer they are saved. And I will say the same thing about the SBC as I did above about Catholics. I am sure that there have been many Baptist that have been led into believing they have been saved simply because they said a prayer. Unless God has called you, you acknowledge you are a sinner, and there is a true conversion of your heart (accepting Christ is Lord), there can be no salvation.

I totally agree

If you want to talk about OSAS, baptismal necessity, or any other of the SBC doctrines besides believer’s baptism, then start another thread please. We’re still waiting for you to respond to the patristic quotes provided that disprove your initial statement, and our refutations of the verses of the Bible you have attempted to use to support your position.

 

[plaurent]

Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

**I learn so much from these discussions. I learn that there are people who know things so clear. Let me be a spectator for now.
**

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I would say that there will be many Catholics that have been falsely lead to believing they will get to heaven purely because they are Catholic and because they followed/did certain acts/held to certain traditions. Unless their is relationship with Christ there can be no salvation.

You mean like the Communion a Catholic has with Jesus Christ directly, personally and bodily? How does an SBC “relationship” even come close?

Are we to tell God who he will give grace to and when?

What if Jesus Christ commanded us to do just that? That a Sacrament, all of which are founded and established by Jesus Christ, which you defined very well in your post, is an outward sign that bestows and inward grace. That this was God’s plan for our Salvation. Not just when we are converted, but in the day to day struggle that we must face.

Remember, these sacraments were established by Jesus Christ and are of Apostolic Origin. Read the Fathers of the Church. They are alluded to in the Bible, but Apostolic teaching was very firm and constant on this point.

At least give the CAtholic position an equal hearing. It also significant, that Catholics have MUCH more asked of their Faith. IOW, unlike the Protestant position which must always stand the test of reason, the Catholic position must always stand the test of Faith. And isn’t Faith what the SBC talks so much about? But does it know how to live a life of Faith, like a Catholic?

 

[Scitor]

You mean like the Communion a Catholic has with Jesus Christ directly, personally and bodily? How does an SBC “relationship” even come close?

Yes. I have seen many Catholic get communion that I would have a hard time calling a Christian. I have seen many Baptist pray the sinners prayer that I would have a hard time confirming they understand what it means to be a Christian. I think this cuts both ways.

What if Jesus Christ commanded us to do just that? That a Sacrament, all of which are founded and established by Jesus Christ, which you defined very well in your post, is an outward sign that bestows and inward grace. That this was God’s plan for our Salvation. Not just when we are converted, but in the day to day struggle that we must face.

I totally agree it is day to day struggle. But, your salvation is not confirmed day to day.

Remember, these sacraments were established by Jesus Christ and are of Apostolic Origin. Read the Fathers of the Church. They are alluded to in the Bible, but Apostolic teaching was very firm and constant on this point.

Please show me where each sacrament is alluded to in the bible.

At least give the CAtholic position an equal hearing.

Of course. I would ask that you do the same for Baptist.

It also significant, that Catholics have MUCH more asked of their Faith. IOW, unlike the Protestant position which must always stand the test of reason, the Catholic position must always stand the test of Faith. And isn’t Faith what the SBC talks so much about?

I would disagree. Required works does not equate to having much more asked of one’s faith. And yes, Faith and Relationship is talked about very much in the SBC sermons. Remember, most Southern Baptist service last about 1 hr and 15min to 1hr and 30min. Of that 45min to an hour is the preacher teaching scripture with the rest being praise and worship music. This compares to about 15min of a priest talking about the three reading given during mass. I would ask, can the congregation really learn scripture and learn a lesson around scripture from a 15min explanation.

But does it know how to live a life of Faith, like a Catholic?

Absolutely. There is no doubt here. Are you saying that I (or any more well known baptist such as Charles Stanley, just to give an example) am unable to live a life of faith to the same level as a Catholic? If this is your meaning, you are very much mistaken.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please show me where each sacrament is alluded to in the bible.

Here’s a chart that does just that: catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Sacraments.htm

And there’s this:

Baptism. Scripture shows that John’s baptism was a symbol of repentance, but not a sacrament. It did not confer grace. In the Acts it is clear that those who received Christian baptism also received the Holy Spirit, had their sins forgiven and became members of Christ, and thus of the Church. It is the foundational sacrament, the only one Philip thought necessary to confer on the Ethiopian eunuch. Matthew 3:16; Matthew 28:19; Mark 1:8; Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 1:4-5; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 8:36-38; Acts 11:16; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; Acts 18:8; Acts 19:3-6; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 5:25-26; Col. 2:12; 1 Peter 3:20-21, and many others.

**Confirmation. **Completes Baptism by a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit and enables the Christian for mission. This was seen at Pentecost with respect to the apostles. In the early Church it was often accompanied by charismatic signs, though these are not intrinsic to the sacrament. Conferred by the laying on of hands. In Acts 19:3-6, especially, it is clear that John’s baptism, Christian baptism and Confirmation are all distinct realities. Also, in Hebrews 6:2 baptizing and laying on of hands are distinguished. Isaiah 44:3; Ezekiel 39:29; Joel 2:28; John 14:16; Acts 2:4; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 19:3-6; Hebrews 6:2.

** Eucharist.** The Eucharist is visibly bread and wine but is in reality the Body and Blood of Christ. No mere symbols can effect eternal life. And abuse of no mere symbol can be worthy of damnation. In the early centuries the name of the Mass was the breaking of the bread. Yet, when word got out of what the Eucharist really was the Romans accused Christians of sacrificing babies and cannibalism, because they heard they ate human flesh. Matthew 26:26-29; Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:24-27;

Penance. Christ gave authority, the keys, to the apostles to forgive sin, to decide between absolving or retaining guilt. This requires “confession” of sins for this judgment not to be arbitrary, hence the popular name of the sacrament. This authority was passed on to bishops, and from them to priests, with ordination. Matthew 16:19; John 20:21-23; Rev. 1:18.

Anointing of the Sick. Anointing prepares the person for death, and only incidentally may produce physical healing. The salvation and resurrection spoken of in James are in the first place spiritual. James 5:14-15.

Holy Orders. The threefold division of sacred ministers (bishops, priests and deacons) prefigured in the Old Law (high priest, priests, Levites) is clearly revealed in Scripture. Yet, most so-called “bible-believing” Protestant churches do not have them. Acts 6:3-6; Acts 13:2-3; 1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-9; 1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 4:16; 1 Tim. 5:17-19; 1 Tim. 5:22.

**Matrimony. **Marriage is, as St. Paul states, a mystery (mysterion). The Latin word used to translate mysterion is “sacramentum”. The sacraments are mysteries (as Eastern Christians still call them), for one thing is visible and something else is known by faith. By faith, matrimony is a sign of Christ and the Church, as well as a special calling. Mt. 19:10-11; Eph. 5:31-32.

 

[adrift]

YADA…please read Galatians and Ephesians. Salvation is a gift from God and baptism is not required

John Chapter 3
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,** he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.**

Must be born of WATER and the Spirit or you cannot enter the kingdom of God sounds like baptism is required.

Matthew Chapter 28
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

How are they to make disciples? By baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit More evidence that it is required.

Acts Chapter 22
16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name

Baptism washes sin away.

Galatians Chapter 3
27: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ

You put on Christ by being baptizes more evidence that it is required.

Titus Chapter 3
4: but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5: he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6: which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7: so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life

How are we saved? By regeneration and the Holy Spirit (What Jesus said water and the Spirit) we become heirs in hope of eternal life. No once save always saved.

1 Peter Chapter 3
18: For Christ also died for sins once for all, 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 preached to the spirits in prison, 20: who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved 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 clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Baptism not required But Baptism is like the ark of Noah which saved his family from destruction it saves us now. Not that it washes the dirt from the body but it appeals to God as a promise on the part of Christians to live with a good conscience before God.

 

[YADA]

Must be born of WATER and the Spirit or you cannot enter the kingdom of God sounds like baptism is required.

How are they to make disciples? By baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit More evidence that it is required.

Baptism washes sin away.

You put on Christ by being baptizes more evidence that it is required.

How are we saved? By regeneration and the Holy Spirit (What Jesus said water and the Spirit) we become heirs in hope of eternal life. No once save always saved.

Baptism not required But Baptism is like the ark of Noah which saved his family from destruction it saves us now. Not that it washes the dirt from the body but it appeals to God as a promise on the part of Christians to live with a good conscience before God.

Thanks for posting this for me … I am visiting friends out of state - as with work and family at times - my time to visit CAF and post is limited by other activities … but you covered this very well

 

[Cathoholic]

(Below is an excerpt from our local Catholic Bible group’s Infant Baptism Bible study which is 92 pages long and is also the reason you are only getting an “excerpt”)

Was There ANY Discussion In The Early Church Concerning Infant Baptism? Yes!

There was a discussion in the early Church among some early Christians regarding infant Baptism, but it did NOT have to do with “Should we baptize babies or not?”

It had to do with “WHEN should we Baptize our INFANTS?”

Let’s find out more details and what the reply was to this question.

Concerning an argument about how early to Baptize babies, a man named Fidus (“fee-duss”) in the 200’s AD, had a new-fangled idea to postpone New Covenant baptism for eight whole days, so we can mimic the eight-day wait as was for circumcision in the Old Testament.

Since a fulfillment (i.e. baptism) is always greater (that’s WHY it’s a fulfillment) than a prefigurement (i.e. circumcision), the fulfillment should be more encompassing, not less.

Keeping this principle in mind, let’s look at how the ancient Church responded to Fidus’ new invention of waiting until a baby is eight days old before Baptism is given to him/her.

St. Cyprian of Carthage and a council (probably a regional council of Bishops) had this to say in the 200’s AD in response to Fidus:

St. Cyprian of Carthage As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken.
Rather, we judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born . . . . If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he (an infant) approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another.

• St. Cyprian of Carthage (Letters 64:2,5 [253 A.D.]).

The Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine, in the early 400’s A.D. had this to say about St. Cyprian’s writings concerning Fidus.

ST. AUGUSTINE Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth . . . . He (St. Cyprian) agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born.

Recall the words of St. Cyprian concerning infants.
" . . . he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born."

If infants were exempt from this, we would expect they would be exempt from dying too. After all, the wages of sin is death.

Yet babies do die.

Why?

Because of Original Sin that’s why. Not that they have committed sins like Adam did. No. But because of the effects of Original Sin on . . . yes . . . on infants . . . . on EVERYBODY.

That’s WHY we are by our very NATURE (NOT “by our very age”) . . . “children of wrath”.

EPHESIANS 2:3 3 Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

And notice what St. Paul doesn’t say:

NOT EPHESIANS 2:3 (Phantom Verse) 3 Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by age children of wrath, like the rest of the adults around here.

 

[zz912]

Lastly, we in the SBC dedicate our children to Christ as infants. Is it your belief that these children do not have the sanctifying grace of Christ?

So how do they lose this sanctifying grace when they become older? In the OSAS theology, this is impossible.

This is were we separate a bit. I do not believe that anyone who has truly accepted Christ can choose to walk away. I do not think we give enough credit to God or truly understand the power of God when he calls one to the family (i.e. when one is saved).

This is completely unbiblical. It’s hard to count all the references, teachings, and instructions that directly contradict this personal opinion of yours.

As an example, there is the parable of the vine, and how true, real believers, who are part of the vine, who are part of Jesus, later leave, and are pruned away and thrown into the fire.

And another example. (Funny enough, this was part of the reading from the Gospel yesterday.)

Luke 21 "Before all this happens, however, they will seize and persecute you, they will hand you over to the synagogues and to prisons, and they will have you led before kings and governors because of my name. It will lead to your giving testimony. Remember, you are not to prepare your defense beforehand, for I myself shall give you a wisdom in speaking that all your adversaries will be powerless to resist or refute. You will even be handed over by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends, and they will put some of you to death. You will be hated by all because of my name, but not a hair on your head will be destroyed.* By your perseverance you will secure your lives.**"*

Simply put, this notion that you cannot leave God after you’ve become a true believer is made-up nonsense.