infant baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter MRRY79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
TNT:
Here’s your problem premise pushed on Catholics: All Catholics must find a BCV for any practice or discipline.

When in fact that is your false belief that you propose for all with NO BCV to back it up., and no authority to interpret anyway.
Click to expand...
What’s a “BCV”?
 
40.png
imroc:
I think it’s rather obvious that since the NT, infants were baptised. The earliest of Church Fathers wrote specifically about it. It was practiced by the early protestants and was never an issue until recent history. With all this evidence piled up FOR infant baptism, I think it is the one who doesn’t baptise infants who needs to defend their position. In reality all odds are against those who hold children back from the Body of Christ, His Church.
Click to expand...
I have a book that I bought a few months ago at a used book store it is old and yellow and the binding is falling apart. Not supprising since it is over 125 years old. It is a 250 page defense for infant Baptism by a Lutheran pastor. I have flipped through it a bit but hope to sit down sometime and read it cover to cover.
 
I wonder why the original poster and the person who said Catholics can’t defend infant bapism have distanced themselves from this thread?

Most Protestant’s cannot be taken seriously in an apologetics debate anyway, and their arguments are usually laughable at best, because, as TNT said, they always start with false premises. They automatically assume that every single thing that one does must be found somewhere in the Bible. They don’t even have a clue of where the Bible came from or who put it together. I read this on these forums once, and I completely agree: Protestants seem to believe that Jesus just came down from heaven and handed them a Bible that says “King James Version” on it. If they understood the history of the Bible, they would understand that while a teaching cannot contradict the Bible, it doesn’t have to be explicitly stated in it. Their arguments are shallow because most of them need a history lesson. The funny thing is, though, that even though we don’t need to justify everything we do with verses from the Bible, we still can.
 
40.png
Greg00:
I wonder why the original poster and the person who said Catholics can’t defend infant bapism have distanced themselves from this thread?

Most Protestant’s cannot be taken seriously in an apologetics debate anyway, and their arguments are usually laughable at best, because, as TNT said, they always start with false premises. They automatically assume that every single thing that one does must be found somewhere in the Bible. They don’t even have a clue of where the Bible came from or who put it together. I read this on these forums once, and I completely agree: Protestants seem to believe that Jesus just came down from heaven and handed them a Bible that says “King James Version” on it. If they understood the history of the Bible, they would understand that while a teaching cannot contradict the Bible, it doesn’t have to be explicitly stated in it. Their arguments are shallow because most of them need a history lesson. The funny thing is, though, that even though we don’t need to justify everything we do with verses from the Bible, we still can.
Click to expand...
In defense of the OP, his/her profile indicates an age of 17. Perhaps this will prove to be an occasion of setting the OP on the way to investigating objectively the claims of the Church and, ultimately, conversion.
 
40.png
FCEGM:
In defense of the OP, his/her profile indicates an age of 17. Perhaps this will prove to be an occasion of setting the OP on the way to investigating objectively the claims of the Church and, ultimately, conversion.
Click to expand...
I really hope you’re right. If more people actually did resaearch on these things, more people would convert. Hopefully what you say is true.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
I have a book that I bought a few months ago at a used book store it is old and yellow and the binding is falling apart. Not supprising since it is over 125 years old. It is a 250 page defense for infant Baptism by a Lutheran pastor. I have flipped through it a bit but hope to sit down sometime and read it cover to cover.
Click to expand...
250 pages!? Wow! I thought typing a few paragraphs was deep :). I would love to see that book. What’s the title, by the way?
 
40.png
Greg00:
I really hope you’re right. If more people actually did resaearch on these things, more people would convert. Hopefully what you say is true.
Click to expand...
And the people whom they approach with such questions should be very inviting and loving, in my opinion. Tone has much more substance than a few quotes from verses, I think. But then again, I am the most guilty :). It’s hard to be humble when people ask questions without any tact…but we must bear it and humble ourselves.

God Bless!

imroc
 
imroc said:
250 pages!? Wow! I thought typing a few paragraphs was deep :). I would love to see that book. What’s the title, by the way?
Click to expand...

I took a guess about it and I was wrong.

It’s 360 pages written in 1840 that (+/±*++/-) =165 years old!

Krutz on Infant Baptism

“Arguments, derived from Sacred Scripture and Sound Reason, Exhibiting the Necessity and Advantages of Infant Baptism;
and Proving Sprinkling or Affusion (pouring) to be the Most Appropriate Mode of Administering It.”

By Benjamin Kurtz, D.D.

Baltimore, 1840

A little shorter than the one on the Creed:

An Exposition of the Creed.
by John Pearson, D.D

Anglican
616 pages
MDCCCL (1850) 155 years old
 
“And, finally, archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. …Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]”

This is from revneal.org/Writings/aletter.htm, although some will claim that the church was corrupt from day one and thus the early practice is not valid :rolleyes:
 
Wow… It looks like the OP lasted a grand total of 12 minutes… I’m curious if they even read the responses; it’s too bad login times & dates aren’t indicated.
 
40.png
Wildgraywolf:
Wow… It looks like the OP lasted a grand total of 12 minutes… I’m curious if they even read the responses; it’s too bad login times & dates aren’t indicated.
Click to expand...
And allischalmers didn’t really want a piece of this either, after asserting that we “cann’t” answer. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I agree with you that’s it’s funny especially since in less than an hour he had an in depth response and neither mrry or allis bothered to return to the thread. I would’ve thought ole “Forever Baptist” allis would’ve risen to this one since it’s a Baptist pet peeve.
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
Wildgraywolf:
Wow… It looks like the OP lasted a grand total of 12 minutes… I’m curious if they even read the responses; it’s too bad login times & dates aren’t indicated.
Click to expand...
I was thinking exactly the same thing! There are no more posts since the first couple by the OP and Allischalmers. It’s like a hit and run…in post form. Shame they didn’t stick around to check for damages…
 
First time poster but let me get a crack at this. I think the problem here is that the majority of non-catholic religions do not understand what the catholic baptism is. They typically think that the ceromony of anointing and the pouring of water on the head during the “infant baptism” is all that encoumpasses baptism. If I understand baptism correctly after 9 years of Catholic schooling, that ceromony is only the begining of a persons baptism in the Catholic church. The ceromony of infant baptism is to bring the gift of the holy spirit to this child to help them along the way as they learn about the church. The baptism is not completed untill the sacrament of confirmation. It is at confirmation that the baptism is complete and they then become a fully baptised member of the catholic church.
What protestants criticize as infant baptism is not exactly what they think it is, it is simply the begining of their journey in the catholic faith.
 
You are correct Light expression. I had a fundie friend ask me about infant baptism once and after examining her church’s practices this is what it came down to:
  1. Infant baptism does a couple of things: It washes away original sin(other sins as well but in the case of infants, just original sin since they are incapable of sin at that age) and it is the introduction of a child into our Catholic community. At this point the community becomes aware of the infant and the parents intent to raise them up in the faith. As they are now a member of our community, all members take on a certain amount of responsibility to guide them in the ways of the church…very similar to their infant dedications, only without the graces and forgiveness of sin.
  2. Our confirmation is confirming the now young adults choice to remain in the church and to become an adult member of the body of Christ. This is done at an age when the young adult is of age to make this choice…very much like their baptism.
  3. Our First Reconcilliation and First Eucharist are initiation steps to help them receive the graces they will need to make the choice at confirmation with full knowledge and consent. This is part of our formation, understanding that we all fall short of the glory of God and need his help through these graces.
As far as it goes, and this is just my opinion, this may be why their “being saved” doesn’t always “take” so to speak. They believe that there is no special graces confered at baptism, so it is not a valid sacrament. It is just a process that they go through after a born again personal revelation…which they believe is when their actual salvation occurs.
 
40.png
lightexpression:
First time poster but let me get a crack at this. I think the problem here is that the majority of non-catholic religions do not understand what the catholic baptism is. They typically think that the ceromony of anointing and the pouring of water on the head during the “infant baptism” is all that encoumpasses baptism. If I understand baptism correctly after 9 years of Catholic schooling, that ceromony is only the begining of a persons baptism in the Catholic church. The ceromony of infant baptism is to bring the gift of the holy spirit to this child to help them along the way as they learn about the church. The baptism is not completed untill the sacrament of confirmation. It is at confirmation that the baptism is complete and they then become a fully baptised member of the catholic church.
What protestants criticize as infant baptism is not exactly what they think it is, it is simply the begining of their journey in the catholic faith.
Click to expand...
Well no that isn’t quite right. A lot of uniformed American Catholics approach it that way. Since our eastern cousins do Baptism, Confirmation and Comunion to infants all at the same time it can’t work as you described.

Baptism actually removes original sin and if you are old enough any personal sins. It puts you in a full state of grace at that point in time. So it is an all encompassing baptism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top