infant baptism

[Church_Militant]

why is that? I understand that the term Trinity is not in the Bible, however the Trinity is reveled in the Bible.

That’s the whole point. Infant baptism is an implicit teaching in the Bible, in much the same way as the Trinity is. I discuss this in an article on my blog. The Case For Infant Baptism

it varies from person to person; the age, in a way, is established by the individual.

Yet I can find absolutely no scriptural basis for this and I doubt you can either. However, we do have that implicit teaching of the Word of God already. Which do you think is the authoritative one?

in a way yes you could say the child establishes the age.

Where is that in the Word of God?

I would certainly agree with this statement, but do you or any of us fully understand anything to do with God? but does the 8 year old have a understanding of sin and salvation?

Where did a Jewish baby boy have any such understanding of such things when he was circumcised on his 8th day? Yet that is precisely what God commanded for him to enter into the salvation covenant and that community of faith. See a precedent here?

you would not be having your son baptized your son would be accepting Christ and wanting to be Baptized himself.

Again, I cite my case above. What do you suppose it means when it says that “whole households” were baptized? That would plainly cover everyone would it not? And that is what the New Testament says, and what the early church practiced. (See my article for the reference to the Martyrdom of Polycarp).

 

[JustaServant]

What do you suppose it means when it says that “whole households” were baptized? That would plainly cover everyone would it not? And that is what the New Testament says, and what the early church practiced. (See my article for the reference to the Martyrdom of Polycarp).

The fact that the phrase ‘whole households’ is exactly the same phrase used by the Jews in the OT is a compelling argument, one that cannot be easily dodged.

 

[Mickey]

The fact that the phrase ‘whole households’ is exactly the same phrase used by the Jews in the OT is a compelling argument, one that cannot be easily dodged.

Indeed!

 

[Student_4_Life]

When talking with my friend about infant baptism I said that it has been a practice since the early Church. I quoted some of the early Church Fathers writings. Some of these quotes had the term catholic in them such as the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. Then she sent me this email:

You keep doing this even though you know better—I guess you think that if you keep asserting this, eventually people will just accept it. This is not my opinion only—this is history—factual history.

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until AFTER Constantine began the merger of the early Christian church with the Roman Army in the 3RD Century. Hint: ROMAN Catholic Church----ROMAN Army. The Roman Catholic Church and the Early Church are two distinct entities—the symbiosis with the Roman way of doing and thinking changed everything irrevocably—and not necessarily for the better I might add.

Everything that Jesus taught and preached was diametrically opposed to the Roman Army and their way of doing things.That’s why they wanted Him out of the way. It wasn’t the Jews who killed Christ as has been so wrongly asserted. He was nailed to the cross by Roman soldiers. That is just historical fact.

After his death, the early Christians were persecuted and martyred by the Romans, so how can you assert that the early Christians were (capital-C) Catholics (which actually means the Roman Catholic Church–for that is the current name of your Church)

I’m not Catholic-bashing here—just stating historical fact. You can’t just leave off the Roman part when it suits your semantics. The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church (and I am so sick of typing that, but it’s necessary for clarity) was not established until the 3RD Century—just because you want to leave the Roman part of it out, doesn’t change historical fact. In overall philosophy and practice, the Early Christian Church and The Roman Catholic Church are two separate entities. That is history.

How can I talk some sense into this woman?

Your friend also has a major misconception regarding the name of the Church. No where is our Church referred to as the Roman Caholic Church except here in the west. The Vatican and all related writings and documents referres to the Church as the Catholic Church. The term Roman came from the west in the 19th century as a point of reference when discussing the Church to differentiate it from the Eastern Orthodox. So her “facts” about it’s ties to the Roman Army unfounded in addition to the previous replies regarding the Council at Niceae. It is people like your friend that help Satan propogate his agenda here.

 

[NotWorthy]

The fact that the phrase ‘whole households’ is exactly the same phrase used by the Jews in the OT is a compelling argument, one that cannot be easily dodged.

Can you enlighten me? And remember, you are preaching to the choir in my case!

 

[JTBT]

The fact that the phrase ‘whole households’ is exactly the same phrase used by the Jews in the OT is a compelling argument, one that cannot be easily dodged.

were the women circumsized in the OT? No; then “whole households” must mean something other than every person in the household.

 

[NotWorthy]

were the women circumsized in the OT? No; then “whole households” must mean something other than every person in the household.

Were whole households brought into the covenant due to the circumcision of those eligible for circumcision? Maybe whole households means exactly what it says.

 

[JustaServant]

Can you enlighten me? And remember, you are preaching to the choir in my case!

Had to search for this one I posted on the Spero forum:

Genesis 17
1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2And I will **make my covenant **between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee **in their generations **for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; **Every man child among you shall be circumcised. **
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

23And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

27And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

Genesis 21:4
4And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

Colossians 2
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Acts 16:15 (King James Version)

15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Acts 2:

38
Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39
For the promise is made **to you and to your children **and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

These are just a few. I don’t have time to post more verses. Now, unless you have been infected with the theology of dispensationalism, these are understood in the terms of a Covenant. Baptism is the New Testament circumcision of the New Covenant (Jer.31). Even if you ignore the word ‘household’, I can’t see how anyone can get past Colossians.

 

[JTBT]

Were whole households brought into the covenant due to the circumcision of those eligible for circumcision? Maybe whole households means exactly what it says.

so if only the members of the household that were eligible for circumcision being circumcisized means that the whole household was circumcisized, why would it not work that way in the NT if all eligible members of the household were Baptised, then the whole household was Baptised. so it is a matter of determining who was eligible for Baptism.

 

[NotWorthy]

so if only the members of the household that were eligible for circumcision being circumcisized means that the whole household was circumcisized, why would it not work that way in the NT if all eligible members of the household were Baptised, then the whole household was Baptised.

Huh?

so it is a matter of determining who was eligible for Baptism.

That’s easy - “The Whole Household” was eligible for Baptism.

This has been the practice of the Church since the Apostolic times. This practice had not been changed until some 1700 years later.

 

[JTBT]

Huh?
That’s easy - “The Whole Household” was eligible for Baptism.

sorry it’s late that was kind of rambling, my point was that it was only eligible members that were circumcisized, and that brought the whole household into the convent. eventhough not every member of the household was circumcisized

can you prove this was an early practice in the Chruch?

 

[NotWorthy]

sorry it’s late that was kind of rambling, my point was that it was only eligible members that were circumcisized, and that brought the whole household into the convent. eventhough not every member of the household was circumcisized

can you prove this was an early practice in the Chruch?

Can you prove it was not? When was the first Church writer that questioned the validity of infant baptisms. The earliest known disputes, in the 3rd century, involved whether one should wait 8 days or not.

But, in regards to your question, yes I do have proof. Look on pages 94 and especially 98.

 

[JTBT]

Can you prove it was not? When was the first Church writer that questioned the validity of infant baptisms. The earliest known disputes, in the 3rd century, involved whether one should wait 8 days or not.

I see what I can find for you on the subject, but I have another point, if a child dies without being Baptised wouldn’t that child fall under the though no fault of their own catagory?

 

[NotWorthy]

I see what I can find for you on the subject, but I have another point, if a child dies without being Baptised wouldn’t that child fall under the though no fault of their own catagory?

The Church doesn’t know what happens to those babies. We trust them to the Divine Mercy of our Lord.