Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[babochka]

First, give you are Catholic it is my assumption you believe the “Catholic” church was formed at the point when Christ said to Peter “on this rock I will build my church.”

I’ll let others deal with the baptism question, as so many already have. I just wanted to correct your assumption here. Catholics believe that the Church was formed at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles.

 

[Scitor]

It was their entry into the Covenant with God. What is baptism?

Classic adding to scripture.

You have completely ignored your protestant brothers who baptize infants. Answer this first, please.

I must also caution you that an anti-Catholic agenda is a violation of forum rules.

Classic addition to scripture you say. How does this differ from assuming households that were baptized included infants. Is that not a classic addition to scripture. Is saying that Mary was sinless not classic addition to scripture. Is the assumption of the Virgin Mary not classic addition to scripture. I could go on and on.

You caution me that anti-Catholic agenda is a violation of this forum. Where have I been rude, disrespectful or ugly in any way to anyone on this forum. I cannot say that of all those who have responded to me.

I just see enjoying a healthy debate. No ill-will intended at all. How can I? I am married to a devout Catholic. I go to mass every Sunday and my wife goes with me to my church every Sunday. Doesn’t mean she is any less Catholic and I am any less Baptist.

 

[Scitor]

I’ll let others deal with the baptism question, as so many already have. I just wanted to correct your assumption here. Catholics believe that the Church was formed at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[po18guy]

Classic addition to scripture you say. How does this differ from assuming households that were baptized included infants. Is that not a classic addition to scripture. Is saying that Mary was sinless not classic addition to scripture. Is the assumption of the Virgin Mary not classic addition to scripture. I could go on and on.

Not adding to scripture is a protestant rule. The Apostolic Churches have never gone by such a rule, as God’s revelation cannot be contained by man’s writing.

You caution me that anti-Catholic agenda is a violation of this forum. Where have I been rude, disrespectful or ugly in any way to anyone on this forum. I cannot say that of all those who have responded to me.

Well, I see a few words gone now - those suggesting a false church, or one in apostasy, for example. Granted it was in the form of a question, but an accusation was implied. The words are gone, so this issue is gone.

I just see enjoying a healthy debate. No ill-will intended at all. How can I? I am married to a devout Catholic. I go to mass every Sunday and my wife goes with me to my church every Sunday. Doesn’t mean she is any less Catholic and I am any less Baptist.

But, look at the thread title! It appears that you assume that your <500 year old communion is privy to God’s truth and that numerous (most, actually) protestant brothers, the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, are all wrong. Is that reasonable?

But, you have married a wonderful wife. Listen to her!

 

[Scitor]

I ask my protestant Brother If I repent and Believed Jesus Christ and have faith, and Baptize my baby, is not a Valid Baptize? so the Holy Spirit doesn’t come and Baptize my child, so the heaven open and when the Holy spirit is going to come down, and he realize is a Baby stays in heaven and my baby is not Baptize? so my question is you think that when the priest baptize a child in the name of the Father, the Son and The Holy spirit, the Holy Trinity Ignore the Priest? just want to know your toughs.

Amo a Jesus…thanks for the question. I guess my answer would be that is is not necessary, and in the context of the baptism examples given to us in scripture, yes, it is invalid. With that said, it is my understanding that the Catholic view of infant baptism is that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children. This view is not supported by scripture. Nowhere do we see examples of baptism in the NT being done in this context or being required for salvation.

Every example we see in scripture of actual baptism follows a believe and repent first and then be baptized. Take the example of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Act 8:36-36, "36 As they were traveling down the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, “Look, there’s water! What would keep me from being baptized?” 37 And Philip said,** “If you believe with all your heart you may.” **And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”][k] 38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. It is very clearly stated here that one must believe in order to be baptized - in the context of baptism given in scripture.

Also, nowhere in the bible does it state that baptism coveys grace as taught by the Catholic Church (please correct me if I am wrong on this point). Thus, I believe that believers baptism is what God intended baptism to be.

With the above stated, I would ask you a question in return and would appreciate your response. When each of my children were born, the night we brought them home, I prayed over them dedicating them to the Lord and committing to raise them according to his word. I asked God to protect them and cover them with his grace giving them knowledge of his will for their life filling them with wisdom and spiritual understanding. So my question to you and any others who would like to respond is: Is my pray invalid or any less valid than infant baptism performed by a Catholic priest?

I would just like add. Many times people can mistake the tone of written text. If anyone takes my text as anti-Catholic or as being rude or ugly, this is by no means my intention.

Amo a Jesus…can I assume your are Latin or Hispanic? From the tone of your post, I think we could be good friends enjoying occasional debates on Christian doctrine and theology.

 

[Scitor]

Not adding to scripture is a protestant rule. The Apostolic Churches have never gone by such a rule, as God’s revelation cannot be contained by man’s writing.
Well, I see a few words gone now - those suggesting a false church, or one in apostasy, for example. Granted it was in the form of a question, but an accusation was implied. The words are gone, so this issue is gone.
But, look at the thread title! It appears that you assume that your <500 year old communion is privy to God’s truth and that numerous (most, actually) protestant brothers, the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, are all wrong. Is that reasonable?

But, you have married a wonderful wife. Listen to her!

To be honest, I am not sure how we ever got married. One thing is for sure. Each of us have become more sound in our doctrinal beliefs.

I am by no means saying Catholics are wrong. I am just saying when I get on my hands and knees to pray that God fills me with the wisdom of His Word, the beliefs he confirms in me most closely aligns to the Southern Baptist doctrine. There are many things I like about the Catholic Church, but at the same time, many things I disagree with.

 

[po18guy]

I just see enjoying a healthy debate. No ill-will intended at all. How can I?

Right you are! How about we pose your question like this: “I am Southern Baptist and we do not believe in infant baptism. We have a scriptural basis for our beliefs. The Catholic Church practices infant baptism. Could you please explain the reasons, and any scriptural support behind that belief?”

World of difference, but the same question. Honestly, we get gun-shy around here. There have been many new users who burst through the doors with both guns blazing against the Catholic Church. A very dramatic entrance, but not one that produces very much useful dialog. So, let us begin…

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Scitor: If this is the case you are incorrect in stating the Catholic church has been baptizing infants for 2000 years. The fact is that infant baptism did not become a part of the Catholic church until the fourth century.

Multiple patristic quotations have been provided which show that the practice of infant baptism existed from the Second Century. This does not mean that infant baptism did not exist before the Second Century, but extra-bilbical sources are clear that it existed and was widespread before the Fourth Century. Will you retract this statement, or will you dispute this evidence?

Scitor: And if you study early church history you will know that there was much disagreement within the church about infant baptism at this time all the way up to the Reformation. Infant baptism became the norm through intimidation and cruel force.

I am no patristics expert, but I am not aware that infant baptism was a controversial issue from “this time all the way up to the Reformation.” Could you share quotations to support this statement. The best thing I can think of is the heretic Tertullian who wrote in Chapter 18 of his work On Baptism,

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asks.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

Although Tertullian advises caution in baptizing infants (although bear in mind that this is likely to to Tertullian’s rigorist sensibilities), he does not claim it is evil or contrary to Scripture. Moreover, he identifies the remission of sins with baptism and argues it is necessary for salvation (cf. chapters 12 & 13). Whatever you may think of him, he is certainly no Southern Baptist. Do you have any sources from this time period that argue against the validity or apostolicity of infant baptism? If infant baptism was a novel practice foisted on the Church, surely there would be writings that make note of this.

Scitor: A law of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II in the year 413 says, “If any person is convicted of having undertaken the rebaptism of a member of the Catholic Church, the one who has committed this shameful crime together with the one provided he is of accountable age who has allowed himself to be baptized shall be punished with death without mercy.” Consequently, infant baptism reigned supreme because people didn’t want to lose their lives.

As, has been said, such a law does not have anything to do with infant baptism, but with rebaptism. He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Scitor: It was Peter in the first sermon on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 says, “Repent and be baptized.” Infants cannot repent. In every example of baptism in the bible, baptism is preceded by belief in Christ and repentance.

You are laboring under the misapprehension that the Catholic Church believes faith is not required for baptism, which is false.

As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), “God does not compel man to be righteous.” Consequently in order that a man be justified by Baptism, his will must needs embrace both Baptism and the baptismal effect. Now, a man is said to be insincere by reason of his will being in contradiction with either Baptism or its effect. For, according to Augustine (De Bapt. cont. Donat. vii), a man is said to be insincere, in four ways: first, because he does not believe, whereas Baptism is the sacrament of Faith; secondly, through scorning the sacrament itself; thirdly, through observing a rite which differs from that prescribed by the Church in conferring the sacrament; fourthly, through approaching the sacrament without devotion. Wherefore it is manifest that insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism.
(ST III, 69, 9)

Infants cannot believe themselves, but the Church supplies the intention for them.

The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the mother’s womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): “The Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot as yet with their own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And if they are rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world?” For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized.
(ST III, 68, 9)

Your claim that infants cannot be baptized because they cannot believe cuts both ways. If they cannot believe, they cannot be saved, because Christ said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. If infants do not believe in any sense, they are damned. Additionally, Scripture speaks to the necessity of baptism, as our Lord said to Nicodemus, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Scitor: I am by no means saying Catholics are wrong. I am just saying when I get on my hands and knees to pray that God fills me with the wisdom of His Word, the beliefs he confirms in me most closely aligns to the Southern Baptist doctrine. There are many things I like about the Catholic Church, but at the same time, many things I disagree with.

You bring up an interesting point. How do we know the truth? I think we have to admit from an empirical standpoint that there are many people who are devout and pray regularly to believe correctly concerning religion, but who differ substantially on what they believe concerning religion. I’m sure you do not think that there are no Presbyterians, Methodists or Anglicans who pray devoutly but all disagree with each other and with you. Muslims probably pray to God more that most Christians, but they still are set in a belief contrary to Christ. Even among two devout Catholics, you will find many who disagree in matters of religion (though hopefully not in contradiction to any dogmas of the Church). I think from this evidence, unless we take a very dim view of everyone else’s soul besides our own, we will have to say that we cannot decide true doctrine solely on the basis of whoever prays the most or whoever “has the Holy Spirit” the most. How can we be certain that our convictions are from God? The disunity and disagreement we see cannot be the work of God.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

With the above stated, I would ask you a question in return and would appreciate your response. When each of my children were born, the night we brought them home, I prayed over them dedicating them to the Lord and committing to raise them according to his word. I asked God to protect them and cover them with his grace giving them knowledge of his will for their life filling them with wisdom and spiritual understanding. So my question to you and any others who would like to respond is: Is my pray invalid or any less valid than infant baptism performed by a Catholic priest?

Your prayer is a perfectly valid prayer, whatever God will do with it. Your prayer is not a valid baptism, not least because it lacks proper form, and the Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Some Biblical facts about baptism:

1. 
   *]Baptism is for the remission of sins.
   “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38).
   
   *]Baptism is salvific.
   “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21)
   
   *]Baptism is for children.
   “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” (Acts 2:39)
   
   *]Baptism is necessary for salvation.
   “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.” (John 3:5)

 

[JerryZ]

Amo a Jesus…thanks for the question. I guess my answer would be that is is not necessary, and in the context of the baptism examples given to us in scripture, yes, it is invalid. With that said, it is my understanding that the Catholic view of infant baptism is that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children. This view is not supported by scripture. Nowhere do we see examples of baptism in the NT being done in this context or being required for salvation.

Every example we see in scripture of actual baptism follows a believe and repent first and then be baptized. Take the example of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Act 8:36-36, "36 As they were traveling down the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, “Look, there’s water! What would keep me from being baptized?” 37 And Philip said,** “If you believe with all your heart you may.” **And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”][k] 38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. It is very clearly stated here that one must believe in order to be baptized - in the context of baptism given in scripture.

Also, nowhere in the bible does it state that baptism coveys grace as taught by the Catholic Church (please correct me if I am wrong on this point). Thus, I believe that believers baptism is what God intended baptism to be.

With the above stated, I would ask you a question in return and would appreciate your response. ** When each of my children were born, the night we brought them home, I prayed over them dedicating them to the Lord and committing to raise them according to his word. I asked God to protect them and cover them with his grace giving them knowledge of his will for their life filling them with wisdom and spiritual understanding.** So my question to you and any others who would like to respond is: Is my pray invalid or any less valid than infant baptism performed by a Catholic priest?

I would just like add. Many times people can mistake the tone of written text. If anyone takes my text as anti-Catholic or as being rude or ugly, this is by no means my intention.

Amo a Jesus…can I assume your are Latin or Hispanic? From the tone of your post, I think we could be good friends enjoying occasional debates on Christian doctrine and theology.

Did you follow what Jesus commanded His Disciples to do? Because if you did, you baptized them.
Baptism does not require a priest or even a deacon to be valid you know.
Only proper matter, an unbaptized human being, water and proper intention.
God provides the Power AND the Grace!

I would like to ask you why are you switching from the issue at hand, the one in your thread title to other unrelated doctrines and dogmas?
Also it would be nice to know just how open you are to ponder and consider the reason we have already given to you, but that you have not responded going on a tangent instead.

–

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Not trying to pick a fight or point fingers. Just laying out the facts. As far as OSAS, well, it is very biblical, but I won’t go into it unless you ask.

I might as well address this while I’m at it since you brought it up. We know that OSAS is not Biblical because there are no clear passages to support it but many clear passages that contradict it. One example would be from Hebrews.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Hebrews 10:26-31)

If OSAS is true, how is it that one who was “sanctified by the blood of the covenant” (i.e. by the blood of Jesus Christ) can enter into “judgment and fiery indignation?” How can it be said that there is no more sacrifice for his sins if he has been saved?

 

[Chiefsinner]

Is saying that Mary was sinless not classic addition to scripture. Is the assumption of the Virgin Mary not classic addition to scripture. I could go on and on.

We haven’t added anything and regarding Mary here is a perfect video that covers everything in detail (scripture passages linking old with new) around 12 mins

youtube.com/watch?v=Kkj_MN7Tnu0

 

[Amo_a_Jesus]

Amo a Jesus…thanks for the question. I guess my answer would be that is is not necessary, and in the context of the baptism examples given to us in scripture, yes, it is invalid. With that said, it is my understanding that the Catholic view of infant baptism is that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children. This view is not supported by scripture. Nowhere do we see examples of baptism in the NT being done in this context or being required for salvation.

Every example we see in scripture of actual baptism follows a believe and repent first and then be baptized. Take the example of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Act 8:36-36, "36 As they were traveling down the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, “Look, there’s water! What would keep me from being baptized?” 37 And Philip said,** “If you believe with all your heart you may.” **And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”][k] 38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. It is very clearly stated here that one must believe in order to be baptized - in the context of baptism given in scripture.

Also, nowhere in the bible does it state that baptism coveys grace as taught by the Catholic Church (please correct me if I am wrong on this point). Thus, I believe that believers baptism is what God intended baptism to be.

With the above stated, I would ask you a question in return and would appreciate your response. When each of my children were born, the night we brought them home, I prayed over them dedicating them to the Lord and committing to raise them according to his word. I asked God to protect them and cover them with his grace giving them knowledge of his will for their life filling them with wisdom and spiritual understanding. So my question to you and any others who would like to respond is: Is my pray invalid or any less valid than infant baptism performed by a Catholic priest?

I would just like add. Many times people can mistake the tone of written text. If anyone takes my text as anti-Catholic or as being rude or ugly, this is by no means my intention.

Amo a Jesus…can I assume your are Latin or Hispanic? From the tone of your post, I think we could be good friends enjoying occasional debates on Christian doctrine and theology.

Yes I’m a Latino, that is why maybe my english is not very good looking, Be friends off course, I have love for everyone my friend, Debate on Theology… uhmm you may can do that with someone better prepared then me, but I can try no doubt, On your babies dedication, off course your pray is valid, but is not a Baptize, and I think that is difference between some protestants and Catholics, many Protestants specially the radical ones,and the fanatic even said that we Catholics are Evil and We will going to hell for Baptized Infants, for Pray to Mary ETC… we respect and believe God, and The holy Spirit works on any way they want, they know your heart, that is why not agree with you, You think my faith and my love is not necessary for Baptize my son? Like my others Brothers stated when we are Baptized we start to be part of the family Of God, And for sure I want my son to Be part of the Holy Family soon as I can, I want him/ her to receive the grace of the God. the I don’t see it in the Bible Argument is another debate my Friend, your Doctrine Of Bible-Only is not even in the Bible, but again this is not the discussion right now.

 

[zz912]

Others have answered very well, I just wanted to throw on my two cents.

This whole thread is predicated on a fundamental lack of understanding about what a covenant is, and what it means. The OP should REALLY spend some time looking into and researching what Old Covenant (Testament) and New Covenant (Testament) really meant. It means you are becoming a member of a family, and all the rights and responsibilities of that family now apply to you.

Circumcision was the means of entering into the Old Covenant (Testament), and baptism is the means of entering the New Covenant (Testament). Reflect and spend some time studying what Jesus meant when He declared that His Blood was the Blood of the New Covenant. Seems pretty important, don’t you think?

As to infant baptism in the early Church, the arguments were not about whether to baptize infants, but whether to wait 8 days or not.j

And you should also REALLY consider the viewpoint and paradigm you are trying to read Scripture through. We live in a sterile, contraception-loving world where medical advancements have made infant mortality almost negligible. A family usually only has 1-2 kids today (and those kids are sometimes viewed as burdens instead of blessings), and those kids live to be adults. This was NOT the case for those of the 19 centuries preceding the 20th century. Families had lots of kids, and they were part of the family. True members of the family.

Telling them that their children could not enter the family of God by entering the New Covenant would have been VERY offensive to them. And telling them to wait until the child is “of age” (however malleable that definition is) before they can be baptized and enter God’s family would also be VERY offensive. With high infant and child mortality, there was never a guarantee that a child would make it to being “of age”. Most families had at least one child that died young. Spend some time walking around a very old cemetery and note the dates and ages on the tombstones. There will be MANY graves for babies and children.

 

[ahs]

From my blog:

Infant Baptism in Light of Original Sin

Infant Baptism through the Eyes of the Old Covenant

What the Catholic Church Teahces about Batpism

 

[ahs]

The fact is that infant baptism did not become a part of the Catholic church until the fourth century. And if you study early church history you will know that there was much disagreement within the church about infant baptism at this time all the way up to the Reformation.

Source and pertinent quotes please. All I’ve been able to find is debate about whether infants had to wait until 8 days of age or not (it was decided they didn’t have to wait). I have yet to find ANY historical reference or quote that was contrary to infant Baptism until the 16th century. Please show me what I missed.

Infant baptism became the norm through intimidation and cruel force. A law of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II in the year 413 says, “If any person is convicted of having undertaken the rebaptism of a member of the Catholic Church, the one who has committed this shameful crime together with the one provided he is of accountable age who has allowed himself to be baptized shall be punished with death without mercy.” Consequently, infant baptism reigned supreme because people didn’t want to lose their lives.

Logical fallacy. The quote you provided says we can’t be re-Baptized. What has that got to do with your assertion that infant Baptism wasn’t a norm until the 400’s? Also, you had to ignore, or not be shown, a great deal of historical accounts (which others have provided throughout this thread) dating from the first 4 centuries that make explicit remarks on infant baptism. Did you choose to ignore these, or did you simply not do the research and decided to make claims based on what someone else said?

There is no record of infant baptism from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. Please show me one example of infant baptism…

Pertinent Scriptural and historical quotes have been provided already in this thread, but this statement is a logical fallacy none-the-less. A lack of record of infant Baptism doesn’t make infant Baptism wrong or recent unless you can prove that we have access to every single historical document from the Apostolic and post-Apostolic eras AND that something must be explicitly found in those in order for it to be true.

…Just laying out the facts.

With all due respect, you have not laid out any facts…you have just made a bunch of claims that can’t be supported by hsitorical evidence. Why should I, as a Catholic, beleve your 16th century doctrine of man which rejects infant Baptism, when Christians have been Baptizing infants since AT LEAST the 400’s by your own evidene, and since the very beginning of Christianity by the evidence that you either chose to ignore, or did not take the time to research? God’s Word tells me that Baptism is for my children as well as for me. Why should I reject God’s Word so that I can adhere to your 16th century doctrine of man that tells me Batpism is NOT for my children? [Be prepared to provide Scriptural support for any assertions you make in your response.]

 

[spiderweb]

It’s seems this thread has gone nowhere. You want a healthy debate, yet you (Scitor) have failed to respond to the things brought up in the very first page regarding infant baptism.

1. No real support for your claims that it was not practiced within the early church despite the many quotes from the early church fathers that say otherwise.
2. The quote from Acts 2 that says baptism is for “your children”, you brush off by saying it’s debatable and then nothing else.
3. You failed to give any adequate response for baptism replacing circumcision in Collosians 2:11.
4. Baptism gives Grace
   (Acts 2:38) be baptized “and recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
   (Titus 3:5) “he saved us by the WATER of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Spirit” (Baptized with water and Spirit)
   (1 Peter 3:21) Baptism now saves you
   (1 Cor 6:11) “You are WASHED, sactified, and justified” How??? It seems to be by water and the Holy Spirit, which is necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5)
5. The early church didn’t have the bible as we have it today, so they didn’t need to consult the bible to answer any questions. They passed it on using traditions which can be seen 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess2:15, 2 Thess 3:6 and by Jesus himself (who didn’t write anything in the Bible) telling his apostles to teach (not to write) in Matt 28:19. This tradition that was passed on can easily be seen in the early Church Fathers as was cited in the early responses to this thread.

If you want a debate, than these things need to be addressed and not just brushed aside as having no meaning.

 

[Scitor]

Colossians 2:11 calls baptism the circumcision of Christ. So yeah.

Um…did you read verse 12, "In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh** was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

It states very clearly that you are raised in your faith, not your parents, or any other.

So again, belief precedes baptism.**

 

[Scitor]

Well, I see a few words gone now - those suggesting a false church, or one in apostasy, for example. Granted it was in the form of a question, but an accusation was implied. The words are gone, so this issue is gone.

That is absolutely false. I have not edited any of my post or removed any words. I never used the words false church or one in apostasy. Feel free to contact the administrator to confirm this.

Very disingenuous of you to write such a post.

Again, I hope the administrator of this post will confirm this.