Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[Phil12123]

Hmmmmm, is there anything wrong with these assumptions that you are making here…

No.

Let’s see. In all three of your passages, Jesus is teaching and preaching, not baptizing anyone, not even adults.

When Jesus was teaching and preaching, hearers who believed His message were baptized by His disciples (John 4:1-2). He is not baptizing in any of the three passages because He never baptized any infants or young children.

So, if I go by the “Phil12123 School of Biblical Interpretation” rules, I can easily assume that baptism is not important at all. When do I get my diplomas Phil? Did I graduate?

Wrong, you need not assume that baptism is not important at all, because, after all, Jesus commanded that it be done to disciples, and just as circumcision identified males with the Jews, baptism identifies new converts with the other believers. In addition, there are different baptisms. For example, there is water baptism and there is Spirit baptism. It is Spirit baptism that immerses or places one into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). That happens at conversion, when one is born of the Spirit, after repentance and faith in Christ. Water baptism would ordinarily follow that as a testimony to the world of the new convert’s identification with his new faith community. Now study that and if you pass the final exam, you may be awarded your diploma and graduate.

On the other hand, Phil, you just brought up a valid point. When does one **enter the “Kingdom of Heaven”? **If you agree with Catholics, you enter it initially (though not fully) when you are baptized. Does this sound right, Phil?

No. A person enters the kingdom of heaven up hearing the gospel, repenting of sins, and believing in Jesus and His work of redemption at Calvary and His resurrection. Jesus said to do that one must become AS little children, meaning one having simple, childlike faith.

Let’s look at your Scripture from Matthew one more time:

Do not forbid them. Hmmmmm…
To deny infant baptism is to deny the Kingdom of Heaven to these infants.

No, to deny infant baptism is to follow Christ’s example. He held them and blessed them, but He never baptized them. NEVER.

 

[NotWorthy]

When Jesus was teaching and preaching, hearers who believed His message were baptized by His disciples (John 4:1-2). He is not baptizing in any of the three passages because He never baptized any infants or young children.

**But, as I noted, Jesus didn’t baptize in any of the Synoptic Gospels. Hence, according to your logic, No one was baptized in the Synoptic Gospels. Interesting. You and I both know that there were Baptism, but your argument that “since He didn’t baptize children, they shouldn’t be baptized”, has to also apply to adults, according to the Synoptic Gospels.

You can’t use an absence of child Baptism in the Synoptic Gospel to dis-prove infant baptisms since no one in the Synoptic Gospels is baptized in Christ.
**

**Wrong, you need not assume that baptism is not important at all, because, after all, Jesus commanded that it be done to disciples, and just as circumcision identified males with the Jews, baptism identifies new converts with the other believers. **

**Good, now you’re getting somewhere. Circumcision is replaced by Baptism. Are there any age variances listed? Without this stipulation, one can assume that the same age restrictions apply to baptism - hence 8 days.

In addition, there are different baptisms. For example, there is water baptism and there is Spirit baptism. It is Spirit baptism that immerses or places one into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). That happens at conversion, when one is born of the Spirit, after repentance and faith in Christ. Water baptism would ordinarily follow that as a testimony to the world of the new convert’s identification with his new faith community. Now study that and if you pass the final exam, you may be awarded your diploma and graduate.

Oops, I’ll still get an “F” in the “Phil12123 School of Biblical Interpretation”, because I see the Spiritual Baptism as an integral part of the Water Baptism. This is what we saw in the Baptism of Jesus, which pre-figured Baptism in Jesus’ name. As Jesus rose up from the water, the Spirit descended on Him. This is the “Born of Water and Spirit” that Jesus is revealing to Nicodemus in chapter 3 of John.

How do I now that the Holy Spirit and Water Baptism are so closely linked? By reading of Paul in Acts when he sees the believers that haven’t received the Holy Spirit, yet. Why hadn’t they? Paul gets to the crux of the matter. He asks who baptized them. Paul sees the connection, just as the Church sees the connection.
**

No. A person enters the kingdom of heaven up hearing the gospel, repenting of sins, and believing in Jesus and His work of redemption at Calvary and His resurrection. Jesus said to do that one must become AS little children, meaning one having simple, childlike faith.

Where does in state this? (the part I bolded and underlined).
**

No, to deny infant baptism is to follow Christ’s example. He held them and blessed them, but He never baptized them. NEVER.

**As he didn’t do to adult believers in any of the synoptic Gospels. This argument is a straw-man.

Why did Jesus not baptize anyone? The New Covenant wasn’t in effect yet?

 

[onenow1]

HI, Phil
I see you are pretty much convicted in your interpretation of scripture, let me just run this by you,to see what you think.

ST. Hippolytus of Rome 215ad] Baptise first the children and if they can speak let them do so. Otherwise let their parents or other realatives speak for them.

Now would"nt you say that they are pretty close to early christian traditions and apostolic teachings ?

Would’nt it be logical to believe someone closer in time to the apostles and witness to earlier baptisms ?

Peace,OneNow1

 

[Phil12123]

But, as I noted, Jesus didn’t baptize in any of the Synoptic Gospels. Hence, according to your logic, No one was baptized in the Synoptic Gospels. Interesting. You and I both know that there were Baptism, but your argument that “since He didn’t baptize children, they shouldn’t be baptized”, has to also apply to adults, according to the Synoptic Gospels.

Sorry, I’m not following your logic. The Synoptic Gospels may not have verses like John 4:1 which tells us Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, but the Gospel of John does not mention any infants or children being brought to Jesus for Him to hold and bless. But because John does not mention the infants, I don’t say it didn’t happen. However, NONE of the Gospels tells us He or His disciples baptized any infants or young children. All you have to have is one verse showing either—that He baptized adults or infants, and you have support for that. We do have that support for baptizing “disciples” (Matt. 28:19; John 4:1-2) or “believers” (Mark 16), but not a single verse of support for infants. If Jesus thought they were proper persons to baptize, why would He stop at just holding and blessing them? Or why would His disciples initially forbid them? Obviously because they were not people either John or Jesus was baptizing. Why? Because both John and Jesus would have required repentance and belief. So, we can properly conclude that infants should not be baptized, since they were incapable of either.

Good, now you’re getting somewhere. Circumcision is replaced by Baptism. Are there any age variances listed? Without this stipulation, one can assume that the same age restrictions apply to baptism - hence 8days.

**I did not say circumcision was replaced by baptism. I said, baptism identified new believers or disciples with the other believers or with their new faith community just as circumcision identified Jewish males with the other Jews. An infant is not a new believer or disciple and is therefore not baptized and should not be baptized until he is. Circumcision identified males at 8 days. Baptism does not identify nonbelievers (whether infant or adult) with believers. Nowhere do we see Christ or anyone else baptizing nonbelievers with the hope that they will some day become believers.

(to be continued)
**

 

[NotWorthy]

**Sorry, I’m not following your logic. The Synoptic Gospels may not have verses like John 4:1 which tells us Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, but the Gospel of John does not mention any infants or children being brought to Jesus for Him to hold and bless. But because John does not mention the infants, I don’t say it didn’t happen. However, NONE of the Gospels tells us He or His disciples baptized any infants or young children. All you have to have is one verse showing either—that He baptized adults or infants, and you have support for that. **Why that’s easy. Turn to Acts and you see whole households being baptized - carte blanche, even without knowing whether there were infants.

We do have that support for baptizing “disciples” (Matt. 28:19; John 4:1-2) or “believers” (Mark 16), but not a single verse of support for infants. If Jesus thought they were proper persons to baptize, why would He stop at just holding and blessing them? Or why would His disciples initially forbid them? Obviously because they were not people either John or Jesus was baptizing. Why

corrected this with His chastisement (remember, I’m using your logic here, not mine).

**

I did not say circumcision was replaced by baptism.

No, you may not have, but St. Paul did.

I said, baptism identified new believers or disciples with the other believers or with their new faith community just as circumcision identified Jewish males with the other Jews.

OK, that’s what you say. But Scripture tells us that Circumcision is what initiated one into the Covenant. Just as Baptism initiates one into the new Covenant.

An infant is not a new believer or disciple and is therefore not baptized and should not be baptized until he is. Circumcision identified males at 8 days. Baptism does not identify nonbelievers (whether infant or adult) with believers. Nowhere do we see Christ or anyone else baptizing nonbelievers with the hope that they will some day become believers.

(to be continued)

**Christ, as we indicated many times previous enacted numerous healings of people, not by their own faith, but by the faith of others. Do we have to drag up the list again? Jarius, the Gentile mother, the paralytic, etc. I don’t believe you answered this the first time. These healings pre-figured the healing of our sinful natures that baptism brings on. Why is it so hard to believe the Christ doesn’t do that for the children of believers?

 

[Benadam]

**If the children were “already” baptized, who baptized them? John the Baptist, who baptized with the baptism of repentance? No, because the infants and children would not be repenting. **

I agree. But in this regard there is no difference in your view, between John’s Baptism and Jesus’ Baptism. Now did John’s Baptism require faith? If so faith in what? John’s Baptism required a kind of power but it was earthly as was John. Jesus offered a Baptism of an entirely different order, one not of the created but of the creator.
I find little in your view of Baptism that would distinguish one from the other.

****Jesus? Not likely, because His disciples were forbidding them to come to Him, which would not have been the case if they already came to Him and were baptized by Him ****

**Baptizing the dead is mentioned and it’s hardly admonished yet unpracticed untill Joseph Smith.
**

 

[NotWorthy]

Benadam, the only problem I have with your thought pattern here is that it would still exclude infants, which is the crux of the matter with our good friend Phil. I believe in Luke’s Gospel, the word he used for child clearly indicated to the ancient Greeks that some of these children would have been little infants (if I remember someone’s Greek exegesis of this passage correctly).

Yes, the baptism of John and the Apostles was not Sacramental in the least and you bring up a very good point, here. It was a symbol, and sign of repentance, something little infants weren’t in need of, so their “supposed” exclusion from any baptisms would fit the pattern of their type of baptism. Notice in Acts, those baptized by John had to be re-baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

So Luke makes a clear dis-connect between John’s baptisms (and the Apostles in the Gospel of John) and the post-resurrection baptisms performed by the Apostles in Acts.

 

[MariaG]

Benadam, the only problem I have with your thought pattern here is that it would still exclude infants, which is the crux of the matter with our good friend Phil. I believe in Luke’s Gospel, the word he used for child clearly indicated to the ancient Greeks that some of these children would have been little infants (if I remember someone’s Greek exegesis of this passage correctly).

Yes, the baptism of John and the Apostles was not Sacramental in the least and you bring up a very good point, here. It was a symbol, and sign of repentance, something little infants weren’t in need of, so their “supposed” exclusion from any baptisms would fit the pattern of their type of baptism. Notice in Acts, those baptized by John had to be re-baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

So Luke makes a clear dis-connect between John’s baptisms (and the Apostles in the Gospel of John) and the post-resurrection baptisms performed by the Apostles in Acts.

Yes, the biggest mistake made by anabaptists is they do not understand the difference between John’s baptism and post resurrection baptisms.

John’s baptisms were with water. But after Jesus rose from the dead, the new baptisms were with water and spirit. Salvation is a free gift from God, and the door to open salvation is baptism. To deny infants and small children salvation is repugnant. You and your household…

1Cor 7:1414] For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.

consecrated
adjective1. solemnly dedicated to or set apart for a high purpose; “a life consecrated to science”; “the consecrated chapel”; “a chapel dedicated to the dead of World War II” [ant: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desecrated”]desecrated] 2. made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use; “a consecrated church”; “the sacred mosque”; “sacred elephants”; “sacred bread and wine”; “sanctified wine”

Again, we see in scripture that through the faith of one in the household, all are brought to God. The UNBELIEVING husband/wife is made holy through the faith of his spouse.

If an adult, capable of repentance, can be made holy through the faith of his spouse, why is it so hard to believe an infant, who has no need to repent of any personal sin, can be made holy through the faith of the parents?

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks Maria, and very good points.

Regarding Phil’s theology, I mentioned this previously and I don’t think it was responded to. But here’s the rub…

What I think the problem that Phil has with Catholics is (Ok, maybe “one of the many problems”):
a) Baptism saves you
b) You can baptize an infant.

If Phil agrees that baptism saves you, and he believes in “Once Saved, Always Saved”, then he can never reconcile himself with Catholic Theology, because to him it looks like Catholics are giving infants a free ticket to heaven. What Phil may be neglecting is that Catholics teach that one does not get to heaven simply because one’s been saved. One can lose their Salvation as the Prodigal Son proved.

Phil, I hope I’m not mis-representing your beliefs, and I’m certainly not trying to put words into your mouth. I’m just trying to help all of us get a better handle of what our beliefs are. Thanks for your patience with me!!!

 

[MariaG]

Thanks Maria, and very good points.

Regarding Phil’s theology, I mentioned this previously and I don’t think it was responded to. But here’s the rub…

What I think the problem that Phil has with Catholics is (Ok, maybe “one of the many problems”):
a) Baptism saves you
b) You can baptize an infant.

If Phil agrees that baptism saves you, and he believes in “Once Saved, Always Saved”, then he can never reconcile himself with Catholic Theology, because to him it looks like Catholics are giving infants a free ticket to heaven. What Phil may be neglecting is that Catholics teach that one does not get to heaven simply because one’s been saved. One can lose their Salvation as the Prodigal Son proved.

Phil, I hope I’m not mis-representing your beliefs, and I’m certainly not trying to put words into your mouth. I’m just trying to help all of us get a better handle of what our beliefs are. Thanks for your patience with me!!!

Yes, IF one believes in Once saved, always saved, infant baptism would be unacceptable. I remember a really good conversation with a baptist whom we both came to understand each others beliefs better. It basically boiled down to original sin. He did not believe we had original sin but was able to see that for those who did, infant baptism was very important, and if one did not believe in OSAS, acceptable. And I was able to see that for those who do not believe in original sin, infant baptism is unneccessary and dangerous to their belief of OSAS.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Phil12123]

What I think the problem that Phil has with Catholics is (Ok, maybe “one of the many problems”):
a) Baptism saves you
b) You can baptize an infant.

If Phil agrees that baptism saves you, and he believes in “Once Saved, Always Saved”, then he can never reconcile himself with Catholic Theology, because to him it looks like Catholics are giving infants a free ticket to heaven. What Phil may be neglecting is that Catholics teach that one does not get to heaven simply because one’s been saved. One can lose their Salvation as the Prodigal Son proved.

**It should be clear by now that I see the scriptures as not teaching baptism of any infants, but only of believers or disciples. If you look at the discussion of John 3:5 at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2513582#post2513582, you will also see that I do not see the scriptures as teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation.

As far as OSAS, there are good verses on both sides of the issue and I could probably take either side of that debate. Since you reject it, I will take the side defending it, to help you see the other side better. In that regard, the prodigal son does not prove one can lose salvation. It rather shows God’s unfailing mercy for repentant believers who have gone through a rebellious period in their life. The prodigal had a relationship with his father, father-son, that was never lost, even while living in sin or rebellion against his father. It is a beautiful picture of repentance when he “came to himself” or “came to his senses” (Luke 15:17) and returned to his father, not thinking himself worthy any more to be considered a son, but only a hired servant. Sin always makes us feel unworthy of God’s great, unfailing love. And so we are. It is only by His love and mercy and grace that we are made right and kept right with Him. The father never cast off the son, or disowned him, but was ever there with open arms ready to receive him back, and that as a son, not servant. When we are made children of God by faith in Christ and His work of redemption, we receive eternal life and will never perish (John 1:11-13; 10:27-29; Gal. 3:26; Heb. 7:25).**

 

[NotWorthy]

It should be clear by now that I see the scriptures as not teaching baptism of any infants, but only of believers or disciples. If you look at the discussion of John 3:5 at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2513582#post2513582, you will also see that I do not see the scriptures as teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation.

**If baptism is only a sign, then why the fuss about infant baptisms?!? It’s like saying, I don’t like your priests because they insist on wearing black clothing.

As far as OSAS, there are good verses on both sides of the issue and I could probably take either side of that debate. Since you reject it, I will take the side defending it, to help you see the other side better. In that regard, the prodigal son does not prove one can lose salvation. It rather shows God’s unfailing mercy for repentant believers who have gone through a rebellious period in their life. The prodigal had a relationship with his father, father-son, that was never lost, even while living in sin or rebellion against his father. It is a beautiful picture of repentance when he “came to himself” or “came to his senses” (Luke 15:17) and returned to his father, not thinking himself worthy any more to be considered a son, but only a hired servant. Sin always makes us feel unworthy of God’s great, unfailing love. And so we are. It is only by His love and mercy and grace that we are made right and kept right with Him. The father never cast off the son, or disowned him, but was ever there with open arms ready to receive him back, and that as a son, not servant. When we are made children of God by faith in Christ and His work of redemption, we receive eternal life and will never perish (John 1:11-13; 10:27-29; Gal. 3:26; Heb. 7:25).

**I like your take on the value of repentance. It is integral to the story of the Prodigal Son (perhaps one of the most beautiful stories in the NT).

But you seem to overlook the last lines of chapter 15:‘My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours. But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’"

If the son was dead, then he wouldn’t have been saved. It took his repentance to “re-enter” the family. Yes, the Father is always waiting for us, but notice the father didn’t journey into the Gentile land to retrieve his son. He waited til the son repented to receive him back.

This is better used for another thread. I like to see how other faiths interpret Jesus’ parables, because what’s so very clear to me is not what is seen by others (and I’m quite sure you can make the same claim about me, my friend).

 

[Benadam]

Benadam, the only problem I have with your thought pattern here is that it would still exclude infants, which is the crux of the matter with our good friend Phil. I believe in Luke’s Gospel, the word he used for child clearly indicated to the ancient Greeks that some of these children would have been little infants (if I remember someone’s Greek exegesis of this passage correctly).

***Yes, this passage requires a view of Baptism Phil rejects in order for Christ’s desire that no child is hindered from coming to Him can be applied to it. To show that these children were believers and that repentence cannot be applied to Baptism without exceptions are prerequisite to breaking down the error in Phil’s understanding of Catholic Baptism. ***

Notworthy, Exactly. Thank you for validating the point I was making.I think a discussion on what Baptism is to the Catholic mind is a necessary prerequisite for understanding infant Baptism for someone indoctrinated otherwise. I hope Phil will be able to grasp it well eneogh that his objection will address what supports it from scripture and reason.

 

[Benadam]

John’s baptisms were with water. But after Jesus rose from the dead, the new baptisms were with water and spirit. Salvation is a free gift from God, and the door to open salvation is baptism. To deny infants and small children salvation is repugnant. You and your household…

Indeed Maria, the power to Baptize stems from perfect life. Jesus called John the Baptist " a perfect pattern of righteousness". So as he said himself his Baptism required power but was of another order that really couldn’t be compared to the one that was coming. " One can only receive what one is given" John reveals his earthly origin and the earthly qualities of what he can offer.

You seem to hit the bulls eye in regards to the direction I ws headed by pointing out the dynamics of an active faith. A Baptism that doesn’t effect the person Baptised in a real way, is a Baptism without works. If faith is agreed to be necessary for Baptism yet the baptism has no works, as St James said, ’ where is the faith?

1Cor 7:1414] For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.

This is a good example of the dynamics of a faith that is active. Heaven is structured on the bonds between persons and the Apostle points out the works of faith building it within the human bonds of the family. As you said, one’s personal faith isn’t required for it’s works to effect one personally. In fact faith is always something acting on behalf of another isn’t it?

Again, we see in scripture that through the faith of one in the household, all are brought to God. The UNBELIEVING husband/wife is made holy through the faith of his spouse.

Saul’s conversion came to mind when I read the word UNBELIEVING. No doubt in my mind that it was St Stephens faith that saved Saul.

If an adult, capable of repentance, can be made holy through the faith of his spouse, why is it so hard to believe an infant, who has no need to repent of any personal sin, can be made holy through the faith of the parents?

Faith without works is dead. If the works of Baptism are not recognized it follows that faith is as well because it is faith that is at work in Baptism.

Maria, thank you for your edifying post.

 

[onenow1]

Morning, All

John 19​

34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

Opinion: I think this is a picture of oridnary baptism and a martyrs baptism. Water and blood sprinkled out on the world. all inclusive.]

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Phil12123]

If baptism is only a sign, then why the fuss about infant baptisms?!?

It is just that Jesus did not baptize infants, did not command that they be baptized, and by His teaching and example tells us that we should not baptize them. It also detracts from the necessity of personal repentance and faith and opens the door to all kinds of manmade teaching and tradition that HE never sanctioned. For example, since He did not tell anyone to baptize infants, He apparently did not see any need that man today sees, such as to wash away some taint of original sin so otherwise innocent babies can be sure to enter the kingdom of God. That apparently was not a concern He had, so why should we have it?

I like your take on the value of repentance. It is integral to the story of the Prodigal Son (perhaps one of the most beautiful stories in the NT).

But you seem to overlook the last lines of chapter 15:‘My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours. But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’"

If the son was dead, then he wouldn’t have been saved. It took his repentance to “re-enter” the family. Yes, the Father is always waiting for us, but notice the father didn’t journey into the Gentile land to retrieve his son. He waited til the son repented to receive him back.

**You make a very good point in citing verse 32, where the father says to his elder son, your brother was dead and has come to life again, was lost and is found. Certainly, to his father the prodigal son was as good as dead and lost, his father not knowing if he’d ever see him again. The father didn’t go after the prodigal, waiting instead for his son to come to his senses on his own, showing that a truth discovered by one’s own search and experience is sometimes the only way it will be embraced. The father would never be able to convince the son by his own words and pleading.

But I would love to hear your take on the whole parable, if there are additional thoughts to what I have already offered and you have added.**

 

[NotWorthy]

**It is just that Jesus did not baptize infants, **

**I still thought you were going to quit using this argument, Phil

did not command that they be baptized, and by His teaching and example tells us that we should not baptize them.

Where did He say we shold NOT baptize children? The only thing I see is that He says the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

It also detracts from the necessity of personal repentance and faith and opens the door to all kinds of manmade teaching and tradition that HE never sanctioned.

You’re barking up the wrong tree, Phil. Catholics teach and teach and teach persoanl repentance and faith. You’re looking for the OSAS section, that feels are sins are wiped away once and for all, and we no longer have need for further repentance. See also, Luther’s take on sex several times a day.

For example, since He did not tell anyone to baptize infants, He apparently did not see any need that man today sees, such as to wash away some taint of original sin so otherwise innocent babies can be sure to enter the kingdom of God. That apparently was not a concern He had, so why should we have it?

**Jesus was not concerned with Original Sin? That’s a new one.

**

You make a very good point in citing verse 32, where the father says to his elder son, your brother was dead and has come to life again, was lost and is found. Certainly, to his father the prodigal son was as good as dead and lost, his father not knowing if he’d ever see him again. The father didn’t go after the prodigal, waiting instead for his son to come to his senses on his own, showing that a truth discovered by one’s own search and experience is sometimes the only way it will be embraced. The father would never be able to convince the son by his own words and pleading.

But I would love to hear your take on the whole parable, if there are additional thoughts to what I have already offered and you have added.

**In short, the Father represents the heavenly Father. If you are dead to the heavenly Father…

Also, all three parables in Luke 15 go hand in hand. They all talk of those that are part of the kingdom (the sheep are part of the flock, the gold coin is with the woman, the son is part of the family). Then they all get lost. This is what happens when a Christian returns to a sinful nature. Then they all are found. There’s great rejoicing in Heaven by the return of the Children. Why is there rejoicing, if they were never in danger of losing their inheritance?

 

[Phil12123]

Yes, the biggest mistake made by anabaptists is they do not understand the difference between John’s baptism and post resurrection baptisms.

John’s baptisms were with water. But after Jesus rose from the dead, the new baptisms were with water and spirit. Salvation is a free gift from God, and the door to open salvation is baptism. To deny infants and small children salvation is repugnant. You and your household…

We know that neither Jesus nor any of His disciples baptized any infants or small children, so either (1) the door to open salvation to them is NOT baptism, or (2) they didn’t need that door till they were old enough to understand the gospel.
Certainly, you can’t be accusing Jesus of denying infants salvation by His not baptizing them or instructing His disciples to do it, can you?

1Cor 7:1414] For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.

consecrated
adjective1. solemnly dedicated to or set apart for a high purpose; “a life consecrated to science”; “the consecrated chapel”; “a chapel dedicated to the dead of World War II” [ant: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desecrated”]desecrated

] 2. made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use; “a consecrated church”; “the sacred mosque”; “sacred elephants”; “sacred bread and wine”; “sanctified wine”

Again, we see in scripture that through the faith of one in the household, all are brought to God. The UNBELIEVING husband/wife is made holy through the faith of his spouse.

If an adult, capable of repentance, can be made holy through the faith of his spouse, why is it so hard to believe an infant, who has no need to repent of any personal sin, can be made holy through the faith of the parents?

**That is an interesting verse but are you using it properly? Did you get your interpretation from the CCC, Sec. 1637, the only place in the entire CCC that that verse is mentioned? And if not, are you a Magisterium unto yourself, or just allowing the Holy Spirit to teach you, something you mock Protestants for doing?
**

 

[Benadam]

Morning, All

John 19​

34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

Opinion: I think this is a picture of oridnary baptism and a martyrs baptism. Water and blood sprinkled out on the world. all inclusive.]

Peace, OneNow1

I haven’t ever thought of it that way but it seems fitting. We are washed or cleansed in both. Thank you for sharing that insight OneNow1

 

[onenow1]

Hi
If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible. There are however, households that were baptised.

Question Phil: When does a child reach the age of reason and when they reach that age can they sin ?

Peace, OneNow1