Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[Scitor]

If I were to say, “Bald people wear hats” it would not mean that people with hair do not. So, saying those who accepted his message were baptized does not mean anything about any other group. All that sentence is communicating is that it was the beginning step for their faith.

Bots…you are reaching here and providing an illogical and non-relational argument. A better argument and closer analogy would be, if I said to all those in a room, “those who are bald go get a hat.” That would not include those who have hair, just those who are bald.

The scripture is very clear. It states without confusion that it was “those who accepted his message were baptized.” Any effort to state differently is scripture twisting.

 

[Bots]

Bots…you are reaching here and providing an illogical and non-relational argument. A better argument and closer analogy would be, if I said to all those in a room, “those who are bald go get a hat.” That would not include those who have hair, just those who are bald.

The scripture is very clear. It states without confusion that it was “those who accepted his message were baptized.” Any effort to state differently is scripture twisting.

I disagree.

The weakness in your analogy is that you took a description (declarative sentence), “those who accepted his message were baptized” and equated it to a command (imperative sentence), “those who are bald go get a hat.” That just doesn’t gel.

My analogy was actually analogous in that it kept the description as a description, which is hardly reaching. The scripture is very clear. As I said earlier, it’s a description of events and not requirements or a command. Read the scripture again.

 

[dronald]

I disagree.

The weakness in your analogy is that you took a description (declarative sentence), “those who accepted his message were baptized” and equated it to a command (imperative sentence), “those who are bald go get a hat.” That just doesn’t gel.

My analogy was actually analogous in that it kept the description as a description, which is hardly reaching. The scripture is very clear. As I said earlier, it’s a description of events and not requirements or a command. Read the scripture again.

(true story)

Today at work I raised my voice and said, “those who have their running shoes on may line up for the gym.” I assure you the children with their snow boots on didn’t need extra instruction, haha.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Bots…you are reaching here and providing an illogical and non-relational argument. A better argument and closer analogy would be, if I said to all those in a room, “those who are bald go get a hat.” That would not include those who have hair, just those who are bald.

The scripture is very clear. It states without confusion that it was “those who accepted his message were baptized.” Any effort to state differently is scripture twisting.

Actually, Bots is not reaching. He is holding to what the Church has practiced since the beginning. The reach started in the 1,500’s when some reformers formed the new and innovative idea of hindering the children’s path to Christ. The promise is for us and for our children.

If you want to step in the middle, let it not go without warning and by the immense evidence presented to you in these posts.

It seems you insist in this position, I will shake the dust from my feet.

Hopefully you are not in the practice of re-baptizing those who have already been baptized as set forth by Christ in Matthew 28. And like St. Paul clearly states in Ephesians 4.

 

[Scitor]

I disagree.

The weakness in your analogy is that you took a description (declarative sentence), “those who accepted his message were baptized” and equated it to a command (imperative sentence), “those who are bald go get a hat.” That just doesn’t gel.

My analogy was actually analogous in that it kept the description as a description, which is hardly reaching. The scripture is very clear. As I said earlier, it’s a description of events and not requirements or a command. Read the scripture again.

I agree…it was a description and quite clearly stated. I will restate my analogy. “Those who were bald got hats.” The context of the scripture precludes those who did not accept the message from being baptized. There is no way of getting around this.

 

[Bots]

I agree…it was a description and quite clearly stated. I will restate my analogy. “Those who were bald got hats.” The context of the scripture precludes those who did not accept the message from being baptized. There is no way of getting around this.

I had a whole thing typed up about how your equating people denying God’s message to infants who are a bit different, but I decided to just ask a question.

I know some protestant denominations believe that infants can believe/know God. Does yours? If so, how could they not accept God’s message? Wouldn’t that be all they know? Wouldn’t that be the exact time you’d want to baptize them?

Edit: Actually, I guess I know the answer. If you did you’d believe in infant baptism.

So where does that leave infants according to you? Lost souls if they don’t live on the earth long enough?

 

[dronald]

So where does that leave infants according to you? Lost souls if they don’t live on the earth long enough?

Actually, the uncertainty among Catholics is what worries us so much. That’s a major drive in the belief that infants do not need Baptism in order to attain Salvation. We believe that an infant would not be condemned nor go to limbo but rather go to where Christ claimed belongs to such as them. Catholics say they’re not quite certain.

 

[Bots]

Actually, the uncertainty among Catholics is what worries us so much. That’s a major drive in the belief that infants do not need Baptism in order to attain Salvation. We believe that an infant would not be condemned nor go to limbo but rather go to where Christ claimed belongs to such as them. Catholics say they’re not quite certain.

But the church says,

1261 “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only** entrust them to the mercy of God**, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”

So the church has faith that God takes them b/c of his mercy especially in light of this:

1257, “Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.”

 

[Bots]

(true story)

Today at work I raised my voice and said, “those who have their running shoes on may line up for the gym.” I assure you the children with their snow boots on didn’t need extra instruction, haha.

Ha, good work.

So, we know what you want for those that have their running shoes on.
We can tell what you want for those that have their snow boots on because of simple logic.
Can we tell what you want from those that entrust others to help them take off their shoes?
Do you want them to give up on going to the gym? Do they not get the same opportunities?
Do you want them to go to someone they rely on to change their shoes?
If that writing was all we had to go on different people may come to different conclusions b/c the part you described wasn’t even describing those people was it?

 

[JonNC]

=Bots;11651032]I had a whole thing typed up about how your equating people denying God’s message to infants who are a bit different, but I decided to just ask a question.

I know some protestant denominations believe that infants can believe/know God. **Does yours? If so, how could they not accept God’s message? Wouldn’t that be all they know? Wouldn’t that be the exact time you’d want to baptize them?
**
Edit: Actually, I guess I know the answer. If you did you’d believe in infant baptism.

Probably its the opposite, actually. It is through Baptism that we receive grace, through which faith grows.

So where does that leave infants according to you? Lost souls if they don’t live on the earth long enough?

Catholics have opined about this situation as well, the idea of Limbo being part of that opining. I think most would say we rely, then, on God’s grace and infinite mercy.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Actually, the uncertainty among Catholics is what worries us so much. That’s a major drive in the belief that infants do not need Baptism in order to attain Salvation. We believe that an infant would not be condemned nor go to limbo but rather go to where Christ claimed belongs to such as them. Catholics say they’re not quite certain.

Wrong. Evangelicals don’t believe in the necessity (or even existence) of Sacramental Baptism in the first place, so they would hardly be qualified to deal with the issue of infant baptism. Also, your certainty is puzzling since your belief is not explicitly declared in the Bible. You are reading into one isolated quote an opinion or interpretation (which is shared by those “uncertain” Catholics.) But you have no real proof, or biblical quote that proves infants and children who die automatically go straight to heaven. You are just certain about an opinion, just as Catholics are certain with the teaching of the Church. We trust in the mercy of God, no different than yourself.

 

[dronald]

But the church says,

1261 “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only** entrust them to the mercy of God**, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”

So the church has faith that God takes them b/c of his mercy especially in light of this:

1257, “Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.”

I would hope that Catholics would be optimistic for their miscarried children, but the fact remains that because of your beliefs you can’t be certain

Wrong. Evangelicals don’t believe in the necessity (or even existence) of Sacramental Baptism in the first place, so they would hardly be qualified to deal with the issue of infant baptism. Also, your certainty is puzzling since your belief is not explicitly declared in the Bible. You are reading into one isolated quote an opinion or interpretation (which is shared by those “uncertain” Catholics.) But you have no real proof, or biblical quote that proves infants and children who die automatically go straight to heaven. You are just certain about an opinion, just as Catholics are certain with the teaching of the Church. We trust in the mercy of God, no different than yourself.

Evangelicals teach the necessity of Baptism because we are commanded to be Baptized.

It’s not opinion; when Christ says that Heaven belongs to such as children we believe Him. Just like you believe Jesus built His Church on Peter based on His words. I understand you think I’m relying on human logic because it does seem logical that children go to Heaven, but I also use Scripture to back up such a belief.

 

[dronald]

Ha, good work.

So, we know what you want for those that have their running shoes on.
We can tell what you want for those that have their snow boots on because of simple logic.
Can we tell what you want from those that entrust others to help them take off their shoes?
Do you want them to give up on going to the gym? Do they not get the same opportunities?
Do you want them to go to someone they rely on to change their shoes?
If that writing was all we had to go on different people may come to different conclusions b/c the part you described wasn’t even describing those people was it?

My point is that an outside observer would recognize that if a child did not have running shoes he could not line up. No one would need to clarify what the children with boots ought to do.

 

[ckutac]

As a Lutheran, I side with Catholicism on the issue of infant Baptism. As a result, I certainly think Scitor is completely wrong, but I do not think he is lying! He truly believes what he says, and therefore there is no intent to deceive, which is what is required for it to be a lie.

Jon

If he isn’t lying, then he isn’t very smart at all. Because it would be impossible biblically for him to prove beyond a reasonable doubt like he stated that he did.

 

[ckutac]

My point is that an outside observer would recognize that if a child did not have running shoes he could not line up. No one would need to clarify what the children with boots ought to do.

First off, your statement that kids with running shoes could line up, is not anywhere identical to those who believed where baptized. No Christian should EVER doubt that those who believed where baptized. Christ made is very clear that you are to baptize. If they didn’t/don’t get baptized, they obviously did not believe/do not believe. And I would agree that you could imply that those who do not believe would not be baptized. However, there is still the middle group (infants who have not yet reached the age of reason, although I see nothing in the bible that ever mentions this “age of reason”), that can’t believe or not believe according to you. What happens with them?

We do get some hint by in Acts16:29-33. Where Paul and Silas tell the jailer: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Notice they told the jailer that his confession of faith in the Lord Jesus would save him AND his household. How could that be true if in order to be baptized every person must make there OWN profession of faith as you are saying is the only truth of the bible? What versus in the Bible EVER says the jailers family ever made a statement of faith? Here is a hint, you WILL NOT FIND ONE. Because it doesn’t exist. Because it was NOT needed. Acts 16:31 makes it clear that his confession of faith saved both him AND his whole family.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

dronald:

Evangelicals teach the necessity of Baptism because we are commanded to be Baptized.

I wish you were right. But, I know for a fact that Evangelicals believe that you must only “Accept Jesus as your Lord and Master” to be saved. Baptism is just a nice ritual confirming your acceptance, and is not necessary to be saved. That is why they don’t believe in infant baptism (it’s impossible for an infant to “Accept Jesus as his Lord and Master,” and because it isn’t even necessary in first place.)

Catholics, and most mainstream Christians believe in Sacramental Baptism. It is necessary for salvation, and skipping it is NOT an option.

 

[dronald]

I wish you were right. But, I know for a fact that Evangelicals believe that you must only “Accept Jesus as your Lord and Master” to be saved. Baptism is just a nice ritual confirming your acceptance, and is not necessary to be saved. That is why they don’t believe in infant baptism (it’s impossible for an infant to “Accept Jesus as his Lord and Master,” and because it isn’t even necessary in first place.)

Catholics, and most mainstream Christians believe in Sacramental Baptism. It is necessary for salvation, and skipping it is NOT an option.

It’s more like our belief that we shouldn’t sin; we don’t because we’re commanded not to. By not being Baptized as soon as possible, we are disobeying God and therefore committing a big sin.

Evangelicals believe that after repentance comes Baptism, the idea that a Pastor would teach that one does not have to be Baptized is false. If one out of their own negligence puts it off and dies, then they answer to God for that and any other sin, because as we know it’s not the water that saves, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.

 

[dronald]

First off, your statement that kids with running shoes could line up, is not anywhere identical to those who believed where baptized. No Christian should EVER doubt that those who believed where baptized. Christ made is very clear that you are to baptize. If they didn’t/don’t get baptized, they obviously did not believe/do not believe. And I would agree that you could imply that those who do not believe would not be baptized. However, there is still the middle group (infants who have not yet reached the age of reason, although I see nothing in the bible that ever mentions this “age of reason”), that can’t believe or not believe according to you. What happens with them?

We do get some hint by in Acts16:29-33. Where Paul and Silas tell the jailer: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Notice they told the jailer that his confession of faith in the Lord Jesus would save him AND his household. How could that be true if in order to be baptized every person must make there OWN profession of faith as you are saying is the only truth of the bible? What versus in the Bible EVER says the jailers family ever made a statement of faith? Here is a hint, you WILL NOT FIND ONE. Because it doesn’t exist. Because it was NOT needed. Acts 16:31 makes it clear that his confession of faith saved both him AND his whole family.

33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Are you saying an infant rejoiced?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Evangelicals believe that after repentance comes Baptism, the idea that a Pastor would teach that one does not have to be Baptized is false.

Here’s the reality.

Children growing up in Evangelical households are taught they are saved by Accepting Jesus. Baptism is a non-issue. I know because I have 7 siblings that are all Evangelical. I have dozens of nephews and nieces, and NONE of them are EVER baptized.

Just this past summer one nephew married an Eastern Orthodox Christian and was baptized an Orthodox Christian. This caused my sister (his mother) some amusement, or maybe consternation. It’s hard to say. Her other two children (both adults) are not baptized either. The children just DON’T repent since they are ALREADY saved, so they NEVER get baptized.

Just an example of the EVIL that is done by not believing in Sacramental Baptism and infant baptism in particular.

BTW, one unbaptized nephew is now an Evangelical minister himself! The whole lot of them consider themselves saved, baptized or not.

Don’t forget, even if they commit a “big sin” in not getting baptized, they are STILL SAVED. “Once saved always saved.”

So your comments are empty and meaningless.

 

[dronald]

Here’s the reality.

Children growing up in Evangelical households are taught they are saved by Accepting Jesus. Baptism is a non-issue. I know because I have 7 siblings that are all Evangelical. I have dozens of nephews and nieces, and NONE of them are EVER baptized.

Just this past summer one nephew married an Eastern Orthodox Christian and was baptized an Orthodox Christian. This caused my sister (his mother) some amusement, or maybe consternation. It’s hard to say. Her other two children (both adults) are not baptized either. The children just DON’T repent since they are ALREADY saved, so they NEVER get baptized.

Just an example of the EVIL that is done by not believing in Sacramental Baptism and infant baptism in particular.

BTW, one unbaptized nephew is now an Evangelical minister himself! The whole lot of them consider themselves saved, baptized or not.

Don’t forget, even if they commit a “big sin” in not getting baptized, they are STILL SAVED. “Once saved always saved.”

So your comments are empty and meaningless.

Wait… They actually believe that the Bible doesn’t teach Baptism by water?