Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[Chiefsinner]

Yes, Jesus did institute it, but for people who have truly converted, not babies. Infant baptism is found nowhere in the bible.

There were babies in the households of Lydia, Stephanus and the jailer at Philippi, where Paul baptized entire families (Acts 16:14-15, Acts 16:29-34 and 1 Corinthians 1:16).

The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children. You can learn more about oikos here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikos

In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul alludes to infant baptism when he tells us that Baptism has replaced circumcision. Circumcision took place on the eighth day after birth (Genesis 17:12)

Hope it helps

 

[lilymc]

There were babies in the households of Lydia, Stephanus and the jailer at Philippi, where Paul baptized entire families (Acts 16:14-15, Acts 16:29-34 and 1
Corinthians 1:16).

The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children. You can learn more about oikos here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikos

In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul alludes to infant baptism when he tells us that Baptism has replaced circumcision. Circumcision took place on the eighth day after birth (Genesis 17:12)

Hope it helps

It’s 3:30 in the morning here, so I don’t have time to write out a detailed reply… So I’m going to post an excerpt from an article on this.

Well, searching for another Scripture, they come to Acts and 1 Corinthians. Wait a minute, five times in Acts and 1 Corinthians it talks about households being baptized, households being baptized. Some of them say that this is the act of solidarity in which a whole household is baptized…the father serves as a surrogate for the faith of the children, and so the father is baptized and then the mother and the others in the household, and the little ones are brought in and they’re baptized too under the Rubric or the protective umbrella of the faith of the father who is the surrogate for them and thus they’re baptized.

Well in those five places where it talks about households being baptized, it never mentions children ever. The first one is in the house of Cornelius and it says this, “All in his house heard the Word. The Spirit fell on all and all were baptized.” So the ones who were baptized were the ones who received the Holy Spirit because they heard the Word and believed. And the next time you have a household is in the sixteenth chapter of Acts in the jailor’s house, all heard the gospel and all were baptized. The ones who were baptized were the ones who heard the gospel and believed.

The next one, the eighteenth chapter, in the house of Crispus, all heard, all believed, all were baptized. Those who were baptized were those who believed because they heard. In the account of Lydia and Stephanas, the same thing would be true as in those very explicit texts. All hear the gospel, all believe the gospel, all receive the Holy Spirit, all are baptized. That’s what’s going on in the book of Acts. And there’s never a mention of a child.

In the Stephanas household of 1 Corinthians, all who were baptized, it says, 1 Corinthians 1, all who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints. Compare that in the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians. They were all helping in the spiritual work of the church, 1 Corinthians 1:16. They were baptized. They were devoted to the ministry of the saints. They were helping in the spiritual work of the church. Therefore they weren’t infants.

In the case of Lydia in Acts 16, her heart was opened in response to hearing the gospel and she believed and those who heard with her in her house believed. There are no children mentioned. In fact, there’s no husband mentioned, and if there’s no husband mentioned, very possible she didn’t have any children.
source

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It’s 3:30 in the morning here, so I don’t have time to write out a detailed reply… So I’m going to post an excerpt from an article on this.

Well, searching for another Scripture, they come to Acts and 1 Corinthians. Wait a minute, five times in Acts and 1 Corinthians it talks about households being baptized, households being baptized. Some of them say that this is the act of solidarity in which a whole household is baptized…the father serves as a surrogate for the faith of the children, and so the father is baptized and then the mother and the others in the household, and the little ones are brought in and they’re baptized too under the Rubric or the protective umbrella of the faith of the father who is the surrogate for them and thus they’re baptized.

Well in those five places where it talks about households being baptized, it never mentions children ever. The first one is in the house of Cornelius and it says this, “All in his house heard the Word. The Spirit fell on all and all were baptized.” So the ones who were baptized were the ones who received the Holy Spirit because they heard the Word and believed. And the next time you have a household is in the sixteenth chapter of Acts in the jailor’s house, all heard the gospel and all were baptized. The ones who were baptized were the ones who heard the gospel and believed.

The next one, the eighteenth chapter, in the house of Crispus, all heard, all believed, all were baptized. Those who were baptized were those who believed because they heard. In the account of Lydia and Stephanas, the same thing would be true as in those very explicit texts. All hear the gospel, all believe the gospel, all receive the Holy Spirit, all are baptized. That’s what’s going on in the book of Acts. And there’s never a mention of a child.

In the Stephanas household of 1 Corinthians, all who were baptized, it says, 1 Corinthians 1, all who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints. Compare that in the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians. They were all helping in the spiritual work of the church, 1 Corinthians 1:16. They were baptized. They were devoted to the ministry of the saints. They were helping in the spiritual work of the church. Therefore they weren’t infants.

In the case of Lydia in Acts 16, her heart was opened in response to hearing the gospel and she believed and those who heard with her in her house believed. There are no children mentioned. In fact, there’s no husband mentioned, and if there’s no husband mentioned, very possible she didn’t have any children.
source

Your article is flawed.

It’s puts things in the Holy Scripture that are not there. That is why it is careful not to actually quote anything directly.

In any event, infant baptism is NOT explicitly mentioned nor condemned in the Bible.

Therefore, when you have an ambiguous or indeterminate situation in the Bible, what do reasonable people do? They look to the early Apostolic Church, and the early Church of the Fathers, to determine what was actually practiced. And what do we find? As expected, infant baptism is very much practiced by the Apostolic and early Church of the Fathers. This practice dates from the beginning, all the way till now. So what we really wonder is when did this practice become “wrong.” That’s very easy to determine. How about 1500 years after it had been long established as the will of God.

 

[MJCamp]

**

Jesus taught us how to be baptized when He himself got baptized. He was an adult, not baby when He got baptized.

A baby obviously doesn’t have the maturity and awareness to understand what is going on. Baptism is supposed to be an obedient act that is an outward expression of an inner change in our mind and heart that has already taken place. A baby can’t do that, obviously.

There is much more to be said about this, but I’ll stop here for now.

Speaking of all of this, I got water baptized as an adult, a few years after I became a Christian. If you would like to see my baptism (which took place in Kona Hawaii) please watch this short video. The baptism part is near the beginning (around 18 seconds in) so you don’t have to watch the whole thing if you don’t want to:

youtube.com/watch?v=r4Ntiq6MrlE**

(I was going to embed it, but I don’t see a way to embed YouTube vids here)

Jesus was circumcised as an infant. What did that symbolize? The New Covenant had nkt been fulfilled when Jesus was an infant. So you have been baptized two times??

 

[adrift]

Yes, Jesus did institute it, but for people who have truly converted, not babies. Infant baptism is found nowhere in the bible.

I do no see anywhere Jesus saying for the “truly converted, not babies” I see Jesus saying not to prevent the little ones from coming to Him and that unless you are born again of water and the sprit you cannot go to heaven. I do no see Him saying accept children.:nope:

Jesus taught us how to be baptized when He himself got baptized. He was an adult, not baby when He got baptized.

I shouldn’t comment but it you did it twice. It isn’t “got” but “was” baptized. He was also circumcised as a baby which as the bible tells us baptism was the fulfillment. Each sacrament is forshadowed in the old testament. Circumcicion- fulfilled in Baptism. Part of the reason that Jesus was baptized was to fulfill the old testament and to be revealed as the son of God. It is your interpretation that says Jesus meant it to be for adults only. He didn’t say that anywhere in the Bible.

A baby obviously doesn’t have the maturity and awareness to understand what is going on. **Baptism is supposed to be an obedient act that is an outward expression of an inner change in our mind and heart that has already taken place. **A baby can’t do that, obviously.

So I assume you don’t think mentally challenged people can be baptised. Again I will point out that no where in the bible supports your statemnet that I bolded.

There is much more to be said about this, but I’ll stop here for now.

 

[adrift]

It’s 3:30 in the morning here, so I don’t have time to write out a detailed reply… So I’m going to post an excerpt from an article on this.

New Horizons
A Better Case for “Infant Baptism”
William Shishko

1. It is not the case that the New Testament always speaks of a person believing before he or she is baptized. Lydia is baptized with her household, but there is no mention of each member of that household exercising faith prior to baptism (Acts 16:14-15). And in the case of the Philippian jailer and his family, the text clearly speaks only of the faith of the jailer himself. Acts 16:34b literally reads, “And he rejoiced with all his household, he having believed in God.” If the discontinuity of the new covenant is that only those who personally repent and believe in Christ are to be baptized and received as part of the church, why is that not clearly indicated in a text like this?

1. All of God’s covenants have included families. Even the major prophecies of the new covenant clearly indicate the continuance of the household as the basic unit of the people of God. See Gen. 12:3; Isa. 54:10, 13; 59:21 (the Old Testament backdrop to Acts 2:39); 61:8-9; Jer. 32:38-40; Ezek. 37:25-26; Zech. 8:5; 10:7, 9; 12:10-14; 14:17. In response to the use of the new covenant passages made by our Baptist friends, we must show that in those very passages the household principle remains as an aspect of the new covenant. If noble Christians “searched the Scriptures” (i.e., the Old Testament) to find out whether the things taught by the apostles were so (Acts 17:11), where would they have found warrant to abrogate the household principle? (I am indebted to G. I. Williamson for this significant observation.)

 

[zz912]

Infant baptism is not biblical.

In fact, I think it is a very dangerous teaching. Not for the baby, but for the baby who grows up and becomes an adult, and assumes they’re saved simply based on that sprinkling of water as a baby. Yes, I know I’m in a Catholic forum here. I guess that’s one of the reasons I signed up, because of false doctrines such as infant baptism, which unfortunately many people have bought into.

Is this an infallible statement? Is this statement guaranteed to be free from error? Do you claim your infallibility at all times, or is it specific when you invoke your infallible teaching authority? How are we to know that things you teach are infallible and free from error?

 

[bmonk]

. . .

It doesn’t. It is just a ritual, and one that is not biblical. And as I said - even if, as you said, the Catholic church does NOT teach that it saves, there are still many Catholics who believe that. That’s why I said it is a dangerous teaching.

Catholics generally understand that being freed from sin does not mean being saved. It merely removes an intolerable burden on us as we seek salvation.

It is interesting to me that the Protestants who object to Catholics’ works and their works mentality can believe in doing rituals, even when they do not have any effect. At least we Catholics can respond that they are not works–or at least not primarily human works–because they are sacraments, and so the important part of the ritual is God’s work.

In fact, I cannot offhand think of Catholic rituals that are simply rituals, without any effect for grace, at least in part. Liturgy of the Hours is prayer, the Sacraments of course are to confer grace, devotions are prayers.

But, to defer to your sensibilities,

Baptism is obviously biblical, as has been shown. Your problem is with infant baptism, which you claim is non-biblical.

We have two questions. Is infant baptism forbidden in the Bible? No. It does not clearly speak either way, nor does it mention children or babies being baptized, except possibly those included when whole households are baptized.

So, then, the Bible does not address the question directly. What evidence can we find in less direct ways?

There are verses such as Mt 19:14: “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” True, this is addressing Jesus blessing children and not baptizing them, but we do see repeated several times that the Kingdom is hidden from the wise and clever and revealed to the merest children. If children have such advantages in understanding the Kingdom, why should we deny them entrance into the community that is working to build up that Kingdom and seeking to enter it?

If your problem is a lack of catechesis for children, that is a long-standing problem. The solution is not to remove the use of baptism, but to address the abuses. We need a more Spirit-filled communion, a more active and committed community of faith. How do we get there? Not by refusing to baptize infants.

 

[Cathoholic]

lilymc

bmonk stated:

True, this is addressing Jesus blessing children and not baptizing them, . . .

You will no doubt be applying that to the concept of infant Baptism (as bmonk has anticipated and I likewise have also ran into this objection from Anabaptists).

Although the EVENT itself can be divorced from Infant Baptism, the CONCEPT presented in the Gospels shows it cannot be used to divorce infants from Baptism.

Why?

Jesus tells Nicodemus he needs to be “born again” (“born anew” or “born from above”). Nicodemus was confused (HOW do I do THAT?).

Jesus then tells Nicodemus the answer. Jesus tells him one (not “you Nicodemus” not “adults only”) but “one” must be “born of water and the Spirit”.

JOHN 3:3-4a, 5, 22 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? . . . . 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. . . . 22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

But notice what else Jesus said: unless one is born of water and the Spirit, “he cannot enter the kingdom of God”.

Now concerning the infants (sucklings) who were brought to Jesus, what did Jesus say?

“To such as these belong the Kingdom of God” and Jesus warned men (in this case His own disciples) not to “hinder them”.

Jesus told Nicodemus that UNLESS one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

If to “such as these” belong the Kingdom . . .

But no one can enter the kingdom UNLESS they are born of water and Spirit . . . .

Then it is evident that “to such as these” CAN be “born of water and the Spirit”.

And not ONLY can “such as these” be born of water and the Spirit, but men CAN HINDER them!

One Cause Of The Indignation Of God

And we find out when men DO hinder “such as these” from approaching Jesus what happens?

Notice first of all, adults CAN hinder them. Jesus gets indignant (see Mark 10:14) as a result of this shenanigans!

This causes great indignation to our Lord Jesus Christ. It upsets Him very much. It causes Jesus who is God to have indignation or displeasure, exasperation, fury, rage etc.

Do you want to cause the “indignation” of our Lord Jesus when you can avoid it?

And when you consider Jesus and his disciples were already going throughout the country and Baptizing (see John 4:1-2), it is very plausible with what Jesus said, that these “sucklings” were already Baptized by His disciples!

LUKE 18:15-17 15 Now they were bringing even infants 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.

Notice Jesus seems to think these sucklings CAN receive the Kingdom of God. So do I. So do all believing Catholics. So do all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches. So do most of the Protestants. Do you lilymc?

Preempting A Phony “Greek Argument” In Advance

The word “Paidion” which is also in Luke 18 usually concerns an infant (“paidon” is used in Matthew 19:13 and 14 and Mark 10:13 and 14) but not necessarily . . . BUT . . . .

But since “paidon” is used interchangeably here in Luke 18 with “brephae” it certainly points to paidon being used as infants in this case due to this context of usage.

The Greek word for “infants” in Luke 18:15 is “brephae” (infants or sucklings).

Adults CAN bring Infants or “Sucklings” to Christ!

• LUKE 18:15a 15 Now they were bringing even infants to him . . .
• MATTHEW 19:13 13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. . . .
• MARK 10:13a 13 And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them . . .

And Adults CAN Hinder Infants or “Sucklings” From Coming to Christ!

 

[rfournier103]

Where in the Bible does it say you must be an adult to be baptized?

**Does the Bible say at what age a person should be baptized? **

If so, where can THAT be found?

Should being baptized into Christ’s Church be reserved to those of a certain age, or should it be available to all?

 

[Porknpie]

It’s 3:30 in the morning here, so I don’t have time to write out a detailed reply… So I’m going to post an excerpt from an article on this.

Well, searching for another Scripture, they come to Acts and 1 Corinthians. Wait a minute, five times in Acts and 1 Corinthians it talks about households being baptized, households being baptized. Some of them say that this is the act of solidarity in which a whole household is baptized…the father serves as a surrogate for the faith of the children, and so the father is baptized and then the mother and the others in the household, and the little ones are brought in and they’re baptized too under the Rubric or the protective umbrella of the faith of the father who is the surrogate for them and thus they’re baptized.

Well in those five places where it talks about households being baptized, it never mentions children ever. The first one is in the house of Cornelius and it says this, “All in his house heard the Word. The Spirit fell on all and all were baptized.” So the ones who were baptized were the ones who received the Holy Spirit because they heard the Word and believed. And the next time you have a household is in the sixteenth chapter of Acts in the jailor’s house, all heard the gospel and all were baptized. The ones who were baptized were the ones who heard the gospel and believed.

The next one, the eighteenth chapter, in the house of Crispus, all heard, all believed, all were baptized. Those who were baptized were those who believed because they heard. In the account of Lydia and Stephanas, the same thing would be true as in those very explicit texts. All hear the gospel, all believe the gospel, all receive the Holy Spirit, all are baptized. That’s what’s going on in the book of Acts. And there’s never a mention of a child.

In the Stephanas household of 1 Corinthians, all who were baptized, it says, 1 Corinthians 1, all who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints. Compare that in the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians. They were all helping in the spiritual work of the church, 1 Corinthians 1:16. They were baptized. They were devoted to the ministry of the saints. They were helping in the spiritual work of the church. Therefore they weren’t infants.

In the case of Lydia in Acts 16, her heart was opened in response to hearing the gospel and she believed and those who heard with her in her house believed. There are no children mentioned. In fact, there’s no husband mentioned, and if there’s no husband mentioned, very possible she didn’t have any children.
source

Lily,

Sound like you believe “Infants” are not members of “households”.

Assuming this to be true of your beliefs, then what are they members of?

And why does the early Church record that the practice of baptizing infants is handed down from the apostles?

The Church has baptized infants for 2,000 years. This includes Catholics & Orthodox. 1.4 billion Christians. Only recently has the thought of delayed baptism to the age of reason arisen, a twisting of scripture that would have surprised the human authors of the Sacred Text.

PnP

 

[YADA]

It’s 3:30 in the morning here, so I don’t have time to write out a detailed reply… So I’m going to post an excerpt from an article on this.

Well, searching for another Scripture, they come to Acts and 1 Corinthians. Wait a minute, five times in Acts and 1 Corinthians it talks about households being baptized, households being baptized. Some of them say that this is the act of solidarity in which a whole household is baptized…the father serves as a surrogate for the faith of the children, and so the father is baptized and then the mother and the others in the household, and the little ones are brought in and they’re baptized too under the Rubric or the protective umbrella of the faith of the father who is the surrogate for them and thus they’re baptized.

Well in those five places where it talks about households being baptized, it never mentions children ever. The first one is in the house of Cornelius and it says this, “All in his house heard the Word. The Spirit fell on all and all were baptized.” So the ones who were baptized were the ones who received the Holy Spirit because they heard the Word and believed. And the next time you have a household is in the sixteenth chapter of Acts in the jailor’s house, all heard the gospel and all were baptized. The ones who were baptized were the ones who heard the gospel and believed.

The next one, the eighteenth chapter, in the house of Crispus, all heard, all believed, all were baptized. Those who were baptized were those who believed because they heard. In the account of Lydia and Stephanas, the same thing would be true as in those very explicit texts. All hear the gospel, all believe the gospel, all receive the Holy Spirit, all are baptized. That’s what’s going on in the book of Acts. And there’s never a mention of a child.

In the Stephanas household of 1 Corinthians, all who were baptized, it says, 1 Corinthians 1, all who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints. Compare that in the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians. They were all helping in the spiritual work of the church, 1 Corinthians 1:16. They were baptized. They were devoted to the ministry of the saints. They were helping in the spiritual work of the church. Therefore they weren’t infants.

In the case of Lydia in Acts 16, her heart was opened in response to hearing the gospel and she believed and those who heard with her in her house believed. There are no children mentioned. In fact, there’s no husband mentioned, and if there’s no husband mentioned, very possible she didn’t have any children.
source

You are wrong to assert that because infants are not specifically mentioned they did not exist within the entire household that was baptized … In fact - households would include infants unless they were specifically excluded …

Also - entire households included others - servants and slaves - who also would have been baptized on the faith of the head of the house …

Similarly we see that played out in the story of Abraham and circumcision … all males of the household, including gentile slaves and servants were to be circumcised - to bring the household into communion with God - then future generations - it was performed on the 8th day as the normal practice … would that mean that adults were never circumcised after that initial event - no … of course not - when an adult came into the household they would be … but once a people of God - infants were brought into that familial relationship … ditto with Christians …

Initially - it was primarily adults being brought into the family of God via baptism … but once a family [household] was united with Christ - the norm becomes children …

Now you can assert your biblical interpretations all day long - I read the scriptures and I clearly read that baptisms of infants are implied by entire households, coming to Christ as a child, not hindering the children from coming to Christ etc … the equation of Baptism with Circumcision, etc … My inspiration of the Holy Spirit is just as valid as yours -

 

[adrift]

Initially - it was primarily adults being brought into the family of God via baptism … but once a family [household] was united with Christ - the norm becomes children …

Now you can assert your biblical interpretations all day long - I read the scriptures and I clearly read that baptisms of infants are implied by entire households, coming to Christ as a child, not hindering the children from coming to Christ etc … the equation of Baptism with Circumcision, etc … My inspiration of the Holy Spirit is just as valid as yours -

You make some very good points. I know someone asked and was never answered to provide evidence that Christian children were not baptized shortly after birth but instead were baptized as adults. The OP of this thread, who has disappeared made the claim that infant baptism did not exist until 413. He was unable to refute the evidence given him.
We are now having the same arguments reposted. I commend all the gentle replies and patience shown by all.
I don’t blame lilymc for not reading though this long thread. I hope that lilymc come to understand the true position of Catholics.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I have a few points in response to all that.

1. You’ve managed to employ two logical fallacies already, and we’re just getting started. Argumentum ad populum, or the Bandwagon Approach. “Look - all these churches are doing it, so it’s gotta be true!” Sorry, but that doesn’t prove much. By the way, I think it’s interesting that the churches that still do infant baptism are pretty much all the very traditional, religious or “churchy” churches. Why is that not surprising?

And speaking of tradition, you’ve also used the Appeal to Tradition, another logical fallacy.

That’s not quite what I wrote. I made the claim that Catholics and traditional Protestants believe that sins are remitted through baptism and that baptism is to be administered to the infants of Christian parents. I thought the natural way to proceed would be to show that what I stated was consonant with the relevant confessional statements of these groups. Perhaps I did not make the argument you were expecting, but I made the argument I intended to without committing any serious logical fallacies.

No, I did not say that baptism was an empty ritual. I was talking ONLY about infant baptism when I said it’s nothing but a ritual. Of course I believe in baptism - not that it is what saves us, but it is an outward expression of an inner change that has taken place. Here’s a quote:

If I may repeat what you said, I do not care what John MacArthur has to say, but only the Bible since that is our only common ground so far. Let me ask some questions.

When does the Bible say that baptism is only “an outward expression of an inner change that has taken place?” You said that baptism does not save us, but Peter (the first pope) explicitly says that baptism does save us (1 Pet. 3:21)?

Why did you delay your own baptism for so long? The Biblical practice of baptism was to receive baptism immediately after they came to believe. You said you put off your baptism for a few years. If baptism is an important declaration of faith, why did you wait?

Why do you cite Christ age at his baptism as evidence against infant baptism? He did not receive baptism once we reached the age of reason but waited until he was about thirty years old. He was certainly a “believer” long before then. Does that mean that baptism should not be given to teenagers or adults under thirty? Christ did not begin his ministry until he was the same age. Does that ministers should only begin their ministry at the same age as Christ? Should his ministry only last a duration of three years? On the other hand Christ did receive circumcision, the old sacrament of faith (Deuteronomy 10:16), when he was only eight days old.

Where does the Bible say that baptism is not to be administered to children. Surely if the Bible were written so that any individual could learn without how to act from the plain meaning of the explicit and unambiguous words of the text, it would specify that baptism is not to be given to children and would not offer examples that could give occasion to come to a contrary conclusion (Acts 2:39, 16:33 etc.).

Where does the Bible say that baptism is to be administered only by immersion? If Romans 6 can be adduced as evidence that baptism is by immersion (and not merely identifying the the spiritual union of the baptized to Christ’s death), is the passage you quoted from Joel (quoted in Acts 2) an indication that baptism is to be administered by pouring? Why the double standard? There are cases of baptism in the New Testament which are unlikely to have been by immersion. It is improbable, for example, that the three thousand baptized on Pentecost in Acts 2 could have been all baptized by immersion.

These are just a few of many questions I could ask. I have tried to confine myself to baptism. You do not have to answer all of them right now (I would rather keep a more modest scope of discussion), but I hope you will at least pick something and justify your position, not from John MacArthur or some baptist article from the internet, but directly from Scripture. As it stands right now, you have no

For now, I will stick to Acts 2:38 since you attempted to address it. You said that “children” here refers to the fact that the baptism was for the children when they came to adulthood. Fine, but you have at best proposed an alternative possible reading, not refuted what I said, and it must be admitted that the sense in which I proposed to interpret the passage is the more plain and readily agreeable. Ironically, you quoted the words of the prophet Joel, which in no way support the contention that infants are not to be baptized and, if anything urge us to interpret Acts 2:39 as I said.

And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. (Acts 2:17)

Here, sons and daughters does not mean simply “future generations,” but means “sons and daughters” in distinction to “young men” and “old men.” It is in the future tense here because it is a prophecy that awaits fulfillment. However, this fulfillment occurs on Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. Therefore, when Peter says, “this promise is unto you, and to your children,” he really does mean the current children of those present. He says, “for even as many as the Lord our God shall call,” because there is no limit to God’s grace. In the words of Christ, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” (John 15:16), and of Paul, “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Romans 9:16). Christ says, “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16).

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Where in the Bible does it say you must be an adult to be baptized?

**Does the Bible say at what age a person should be baptized? **

If so, where can THAT be found?

Should being baptized into Christ’s Church be reserved to those of a certain age, or should it be available to all?

Just so you understand; this argument is that one must first have Faith in Jesus before one can be baptized. Therefore they don’t make an age argument so much as an age of ability to accept Jesus in Faith first. That is the infant baptism difficulty in a nutshell. But it should also be understood, that those that make this argument also do not see baptism as a Sacrament, but rather an “ordinance.” Something one just does as a seal on his Faith. So from a flawed understanding of Baptism comes a flawed understanding of how it should be administered.

The Catholic argument of course, is that the parents can (and should) make this decision for their child, just as the parent would make the decision to have the child undergo surgery or go to school etc.

That is why Catholic children are baptized Christians, and “born again’s” children are unbaptized, (and often go through life this way.) This is basically a fundamentalist argument, the main stream Protestants DO see Baptism as a Sacrament, and DO baptize infants. Notice the Christening of Prince Harry’s baby?

 

[dskysmine]

Interesting…
Scitor having realised he could not convince anybody stopped answering…
in comes lilymc… trying to pass as a philosopher.

It’s even hard to know where to start so I will just be mean.

To all the Southern Baptists out there, if Baptism is not necessary and all children under the age of reason that die go to Heaven, why is abortion bad? Aren’t all the aborted children going to go to Heaven? If we let them get to the age of reason we are just running the risk of depriving them from Heaven right?

@lilymc, that is called an argumentum ad absurdum (or reductio ad absurdum).

@lilymc you cannot claim that Appeal to Tradition is a falacy anymore than you can appeal to the Bible. Catholics do not see the Bible as a book that was descended from Heaven into our living rooms. Without Tradition there would be no Bible…

I honestly have already tried to discuss with all kinds of crazy Southern Baptists… I have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous to expect them to change their views with any kind of argument we present to them… they are unreasonable.
I would call it Pride… but I hope it’s just blindness.

I pray for them and try not to put too many complicated words in my arguments for them.

God bless,
D.

 

[dronald]

.

To all the Southern Baptists out there, if Baptism is not necessary and all children under the age of reason that die go to Heaven, why is abortion bad? Aren’t all the aborted children going to go to Heaven? If we let them get to the age of reason we are just running the risk of depriving them from Heaven right?

What a silly argument. Why would it be bad to kill someone immediately after taking the Eucharist? Doesn’t one have to be in a state of grace and we can just send them to Heaven? This argument makes no sense.

Interesting…
Scitor having realised he could not convince anybody stopped answering…
in comes lilymc… trying to pass as a philosopher.

I also take issue with this. When someone takes a break and gets 12 replies (long ones too) do you understand how hard it is to get back to everyone?

I’ve been there many times; it’s not easy being a Protestant here.

 

[ahs]

… When someone takes a break and gets 12 replies (long ones too) do you understand how hard it is to get back to everyone?

I’ve been there many times; it’s not easy being a Protestant here.

This is a good point that needs to be kept in mind. I’ve found it equally difficult to reply to all posts when I’ve participated on non-Catholic forums. No doubt there were folks there who criticized my lack of response to some posts. Even here on CAF there are times I get knee deep into a topic, only to have something come up and am not able to get back in a timely manner. But here at least there are other people who continue the thread with the Catholic position.

 

[adrift]

This is a good point that needs to be kept in mind. I’ve found it equally difficult to reply to all posts when I’ve participated on non-Catholic forums. No doubt there were folks there who criticized my lack of response to some posts. Even here on CAF there are times I get knee deep into a topic, only to have something come up and am not able to get back in a timely manner. But here at least there are other people who continue the thread with the Catholic position.

All this is true but the OP hasn’t been back for two weeks. I am not sure how long a break is needed. We shall see if he returns. I have also stopped posting on a thread because I lost it Latter while going back I find it again and it can be a couple of months:shrug:

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

What a silly argument. Why would it be bad to kill someone immediately after taking the Eucharist? Doesn’t one have to be in a state of grace and we can just send them to Heaven? This argument makes no sense.

When someone receives communion, they are supposed to be in a state of grace. They might in fact be in a state of mortal sin. There is no way for an external observer to verify this. Perhaps if God afterward smites them with lightening, we would have some grounds for guessing that they ought to have abstained, but that seems to be a rare occurence. On the other hand, babies are incapable of sinning because they lack the use of reason. You don’t think children sin in the womb, do you? If they do not need baptism and get an automatic ticket to heaven as some suppose, then murdering them objectively guaruntees their salvation.