Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[Phil12123]

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

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.

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.

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

**Why do you take bits and pieces of what I say out of context? When you read my whole paragraph, you can’t possibly come up with some of the things you say in response, as above.

For example, did I say, Jesus was not concerned with Original Sin? No. So, why do you make that statement?

I said infant baptism detracts from personal repentance and faith. So, you say, I’m barking up the wrong tree, totally removing my concern about personal repentance and faith out of the context of infant baptism. Why? I don’t understand why you do that. You mention Luther, which has nothing to do with anything I said in my post. Why? I don’t understand that either. Could you please explain yourself?

For your benefit, I will repeat your question and my answer and then perhaps you can direct your response to my answer as a whole without taking portions of it out of context:**

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

me: ** 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?

**

 

[Phil12123]

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.

What you see throughout Acts is Peter, Philip, and Paul and his companions (Barnabas or Silas) preaching the gospel. Some of the people who heard their message believed it and some did not. Those who believed were baptized. If the children of parents believed, they were baptized, like everyone else who believed what was preached. There is not a single verse showing that there were children in a household who did not believe (on their own) but who were nevertheless baptized simply because their parents believed and were baptized. No one gets to heaven on the coat tails of their parents. Each person stands before God individually and it is his or her own personal repentance and faith that brings him or her into the kingdom of heaven. The idea that everyone, starting at infancy, was to be baptized and then hopefully they will some day come to their own personal faith in Christ, is totally foreign to everything we see in Scripture. It is a man-made invention, not a command of God.

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

**That probably varies from child to child. Yes, of course, when they reach that age, they can sin and are then accountable for it. Without forgiveness at that point, they are not heavenbound.

**

 

[Benadam]

Allowing His diciples to do the Baptizing revealed that Jesus is from heaven, because the power that originates in His life could be ministered by others.

This is why John the Baptist had to do all the Baptizing himself and Jesus did not. John reveals this when he explains that he is earthly when questioned about Jesus baptizing, although it was Jesus’ diciples baptizing.

The view of Baptism into Christ that appears as a Baptism into John reveals a foundational error that will knead error into the truth built on it.

That Jesus’ Baptism was fundamentally different is revealed at the beginning by more than just words.

As I stated before, a fundamental difference was the **vicarious **means by which Jesus’ Baptism could be offered. This must have been striking to the diciples of John.

John’s answer; “I am earthly His origin is heaven” “He must grow greater I must grow smaller”. Jesus was making diciples that could baptize! They were all as John, Baptizers!. This brings to mind Jesus saying." John is the greatest man born of woman yet the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he." Anyway this is why Jesus didn’t Baptize. The dynamics of Baptism into the Life of Christ are not earthly and not bound by the laws that governed the Baptism of St John.

Jesus’ Baptism is supernatural because Jesus is, and more than just a sign because the life of Jesus is more than a pattern of the perfections of God but is God.

Jesus didn’t want the children hindered from coming to Him. If what the bible reveals about Baptism is believed then one knows that the life of God is entered into through it and He wants to live in the hearts of babes in arms through the gift of Baptism.

 

[Phil12123]

Allowing His diciples to do the Baptizing revealed that Jesus is from heaven, because the power that originates in His life could be ministered by others.

This is why John the Baptist had to do all the Baptizing himself and Jesus did not. John reveals this when he explains that he is earthly when questioned about Jesus baptizing, although it was Jesus’ diciples baptizing.

John’s answer; “I am earthly His origin is heaven” “He must grow greater I must grow smaller”. Jesus was making diciples that could baptize! They were all as John, Baptizers!. This brings to mind Jesus saying." John is the greatest man born of woman yet the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he." Anyway this is why Jesus didn’t Baptize. The dynamics of Baptism into the Life of Christ are not earthly and not bound by the laws that governed the Baptism of St John.

Jesus’ Baptism is supernatural because Jesus is, and more than just a sign because the life of Jesus is more than a pattern of the perfections of God but is God.

John the Baptist had a limited ministry, pointing everyone to the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world. It was not a ministry that would continue long after Jesus Himself was baptized by John and Jesus Himself would call men to be His followers. John did not need others to be baptizing for him. On the other hand, Jesus would have His followers baptize new believers because His baptism would be the norm for hundreds of years after His death, burial, and resurrection. John did not commission anyone to go into all the world and preach what he was preaching, baptizing as he was baptizing. The difference between the two ministries is obvious. John preached a baptism of repentance and that baptism pictured cleansing of sins repented of. Jesus’ baptism also pictured cleansing of sins repented of, but more. His baptism also pictured a burial with Christ and a resurrection to new life. The picture did not effect what was pictured, i.e., did not create the new life, but was a picture of that new life. The new life is a spiritual reality, a spiritual birth, created when one receives Christ (John 1:11-13; 3:1-8; Gal. 3:26; Eph. 3:17; 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 5:11-12)

Jesus didn’t want the children hindered from coming to Him. If what the bible reveals about Baptism is believed then one knows that the life of God is entered into through it and He wants to live in the hearts of babes in arms through the gift of Baptism.

**You and others here like to say, at nauseam, Jesus didn’t want the children hindered from coming to Him, while totally removing it from its context, not of baptism, but of holding and blessing them only. Why do you do that? To fit your preconceived notions of baptizing babies that is not supported by this or any other text.

Life is NOT entered through baptism. It is entered by repentance and faith in the One Who died for your sins and rose again. “He that has the Son [not baptism] has LIFE and he that has not the Son of God has not LIFE” (1 John 5:12).

He lives in the hearts of all those who have repented and placed their trust in the Savior. “We are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). “that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” [not through baptism] (Eph. 3:17). **

 

[Benadam]

**

**John the Baptist had a limited ministry, John did not need others to be baptizing for him. **

 

[Benadam]

---

Life is NOT entered through baptism. It is entered by repentance and faith in the One Who died for your sins and rose again. “He that has the Son [not baptism] has LIFE and he that has not the Son of God has not LIFE” (1 John 5:12).

**
you added 'not Baptism’

***I’ve shown how John’s life is offered through John’s Baptism as it is revealed in the Scriptures. ***

***We enter into a death to ressurrection life through the Baptism Jesus offered in the same way those people could accept Jesus’ words through John’s. We are Baptized with the Holy Spirit in Jesus Baptism because the Life of the Holy Spirit and Jesus are One. ***

Phil, we do enter into New Life through Baptism and it’s not a picture it’s a reality on earth as well as in the spiritual realm.

Peace to you brother in Christ
**

 

[Benadam]

**

You and others here like to say, at nauseam

, Jesus didn’t want the children hindered from coming to Him, while totally removing it from its context,**

context is relative to the measure one see’s the whole picture

**

** not of baptism, but of holding and blessing them **

**

****only. Why do you do that? ****

We do that because we speak out of what we see

To me you what you are stating is; something cannot be true because it isn’t seen by you.

Notice that you will say often ‘not of’ this or that, when speaking of Catholic belief and we will say often "it is both’.

**If a matter of faith about God is viewed as an impossibility just because that matter is not visible relative to the believer then “all things are not possible with God” to that believer. **

To fit your preconceived notions of baptizing babies that is not supported by this or any other text.

**** by the same token it can be said that scriptures reveal more that supports it than it does that denies it…because it never does deny it**

Could this be something you deny because it is an impossibility in your mind?

the text reveals alot that is not visible to you but is to others
**

**

**Life is NOT entered through baptism. It is entered by repentance and faith in the One Who died for your sins and rose again. **

**

**It is both **

"He that has the Son [not baptism] has LIFE and he that has not the Son of God has not LIFE" (1 John 5:12).

it is both

---

If you kept to what you see you would remove the words in parenthesis.

He lives in the hearts of all those who have repented and placed their trust in the Savior. "We are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26). “that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” [not through baptism] (Eph. 3:17).

---

again what you do not see is added. I hope you notice this pattern in your dialogue with Catholics. The next time you speak with an atheist about the existence of God notice the same pattern. They say God does not exist because there is no evidence. Of course you and I know the evidence is just not accepted because God is impossible to someone like that.

 

[NotWorthy]

**Why do you take bits and pieces of what I say out of context? When you read my whole paragraph, you can’t possibly come up with some of the things you say in response, as above.

For example, did I say, Jesus was not concerned with Original Sin? No. So, why do you make that statement?
**Sigh… Let’s go the tape, again Phil.

Phil12123:
** 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?**

---

 

[NotWorthy]

**
For your benefit, I will repeat your question and my answer and then perhaps you can direct your response to my answer as a whole without taking portions of it out of context:**

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

Phil: ** 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.

Please explain to me where Jesus tells us 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?

**Phil, the very first instruction from the New Covenant Catholic Church was what? Repent **and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.

**I think baptism is rather important.

 

[NotWorthy]

**John the Baptist had a limited ministry, pointing everyone to the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world. It was not a ministry that would continue long after Jesus Himself was baptized by John and Jesus Himself would call men to be His followers. John did not need others to be baptizing for him. **This is correct. “I must decrease while He increases” (paraphrasing).

On the other hand, Jesus would have His followers baptize new believers because His baptism would be the norm for hundreds of years after His death, burial, and resurrection. John did not commission anyone to go into all the world and preach what he was preaching, baptizing as he was baptizing. The difference between the two ministries is obvious. John preached a baptism of repentance and that baptism pictured cleansing of sins repented of. Jesus’ baptism also pictured cleansing of sins repented of, but more. His baptism also pictured a burial with Christ and a resurrection to new life. The picture did not effect what was pictured, i.e., did not create the new life, but was a picture of that new life. The new life is a spiritual reality, a spiritual birth, created when one receives Christ (John 1:11-13; 3:1-8; Gal. 3:26; Eph. 3:17; 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 5:11-12)

Phil, we’ve repeated ad nauseum the need for Baptism only because the Church since Apostolic Times has preached ad nauseum the need for Baptism.

It’s as simple as that. Who are you going to trust?

 

[onenow1]

Quote= PHIL
You and others here like to say, at nauseam, Jesus didn’t want the children hindered from coming to Him, while totally removing it from its context, not of baptism, but of holding and blessing them only. Why do you do that? To fit your preconceived notions of baptizing babies that is not supported by this or any other text.

Life is NOT entered through baptism. It is entered by repentance and faith in the One Who died for your sins and rose again. “He that has the Son [not baptism] has LIFE and he that has not the Son of God has not LIFE” (1 John 5:12).

He lives in the hearts of all those who have repented and placed their trust in the Savior. “We are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). “that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” [not through baptism] (Eph. 3:17).

---

Quote=OneNow1 I think you left out verse 27 in galations,. any way here it is. Lets not leave any stone unturned.

Gal. 3:27, Since] every one of you has been baptised clothed in Christ. Quote= OneNow1, Faith and Baptism.

Again Phil I must reiterate His last words to his disciples.

Matthew 28
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing themin the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

You have added to God’s word in Eph 3:17.

Observe All He commandmed]

Peace,OneNow1,

 

[fullofzeal]

nowhere does it say that infants are not to be baptised. there is evidence that they were baptised, although not explicit. the whole of the gospel is written to an adult audience in need of direction, who knew old covenental procedure. we don’t have a remedial gospel that told kids to make sure that parents baptised them. we are dealing with existing things being renewed. wake up!!..i did.

 

[Phil12123]

nowhere does it say that infants are not to be baptised. there is evidence that they were baptised, although not explicit. the whole of the gospel is written to an adult audience in need of direction, who knew old covenental procedure. we don’t have a remedial gospel that told kids to make sure that parents baptised them. we are dealing with existing things being renewed. wake up!!..i did.

**Perhaps you could “wake up!!” and read the other posts in this thread so I won’t have to repeat myself. Or did you already read from page 7 on, and you still want me to repeat myself?

**

 

[Phil12123]

**Does it say anywhere we shouldn’t baptize atheists? Or cats or dogs? Does it need to, when it does say who we are to baptize?
**

 

[Phil12123]

Baptism is required in order to believe.

Benadam:

Phil, we do enter into New Life through Baptism and it’s not a picture it’s a reality on earth as well as in the spiritual realm.

You’re getting the cart before the horse. Your cart is pulling your horse. LIFE is found only in Jesus. If you have Jesus, you have LIFE. “He that has the Son has LIFE, and he that has not the Son of God has NOT LIFE” (1 John 5:12). How do you have the Son? By receiving Him by faith.

**John 1:
11. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name:
13. who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. **

Those who receive Him, believe in His name, become children of God, born of God. They, and they alone, are proper candidates for baptism. Nowhere do we see someone, as a nonbeliever, getting baptized in order to be able to receive, believe, and be born of God. The order, throughout the Gospels and Acts, is believe and then be baptized, not the reverse. When the infant can receive, believe and be born of God, he can be baptized. Baptizing him before that is neither commanded nor done anywhere in Scripture. If we can’t follow Jesus and His disciples as role models and examples, who can we follow? They never baptized any infants. His command was to make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM…teaching THEM. He never commanded that nonbelievers (whether infants or adults) be baptized and then hopefully some day they will become believers. NEVER.

 

[justasking4]

nowhere does it say that infants are not to be baptised. there is evidence that they were baptised, although not explicit. the whole of the gospel is written to an adult audience in need of direction, who knew old covenental procedure. we don’t have a remedial gospel that told kids to make sure that parents baptised them. we are dealing with existing things being renewed. wake up!!..i did.

Since the catholic church is making the claim for infants to be baptized its up to them to support this claim from the scriptures. That is impossible for the mere fact that not only are there no examples of it, nor taught by the apostles but also and more importantly infants cannot believe which is first required for baptism.
The other problem with this is: what of infants who are baptized and don’t follow nor profess belief Christ. Are we to believe at one time they were Christians?

 

[NotWorthy]

Since the catholic church is making the claim for infants to be baptized its up to them to support this claim from the scriptures. The Church has shown since its infancy that infants are baptized (sorry for the pun). The Church has shown that whole households were baptized, and used “Baptism replaces Circumcision” as a basis for this teaching, among other things. The whole “infancy is not allowed” thing has only surfaced in recent centuries. I would think the onus is on you.

You choose not to believe it. That’s your business.

 

[Phil12123]

Phil, we’ve repeated ad nauseum the need for Baptism only because the Church since Apostolic Times has preached ad nauseum the need for Baptism.

It’s as simple as that. Who are you going to trust?

How about trusting the only Person Who commanded that anyone be baptized, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ? Isn’t what He did (NOT baptize any infants and NOT command any of His disciples to baptize any infants) and what He said (“make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM…and teaching THEM…”) worthy of trust?

 

[NotWorthy]

How about trusting the only Person Who commanded that anyone be baptized, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ? Isn’t what He did (NOT baptize any infants and NOT command any of His disciples to baptize any infants) and what He said (“make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM…and teaching THEM…”) worthy of trust?

How about trusting the Church that He left to carry on His Gospel? They baptized whole households.

Since Jesus did not baptize and since Jesus didn’t stipulate who to baptize and who not to baptize, that’s a straw man, Phil.

 

[Phil12123]

How about trusting the Church that He left to carry on His Gospel? They baptized whole households.

I trust that the early church of Peter, Philip, and Paul, etc. followed Jesus’ instructions to make disciples and baptize THEM. And I trust that Peter would have been with Jesus when Jesus was making new disciples and that he, Peter, baptized those new disciples. I further trust that Peter would have seen that Jesus did not make disciples of infants and therefore Peter would never have baptized any infants. I also trust that that would have continued even after Jesus’ ascension, so that if a household contained any infants, they would not have been baptized then either. Let’s face it—your whole households argument is a strawman. NOT A SIINGLE VERSE shows any nonbelieving infants were baptized, in any of the household passages, solely because there was a believing parent that was baptized. NOT ONE.

Since Jesus did not baptize and since Jesus didn’t stipulate who to baptize and who not to baptize, that’s a straw man, Phil.

**Wrong. He very specifically stipulated who to baptize and who not to baptize----only new disciples were baptized. If you weren’t one of the new disciples, made of all nations, you were not to be baptized. How much clearer did He need to make it? Why can’t you just believe it? Why do you fight it?

Consider this: If the household contained infants, they would no more be made a disciple than any household pets. Did the disciples baptize the family dog, to make sure it went to heaven when it died? After all, there surely were a lot of dogs and cats in those households. Did Jesus have to say, make disciples of people who can understand the Gospel, baptizing them… teaching them to observe all I have commanded you"? Or is that not implied, without saying it? You don’t make an infant a “disciple” before he/she is old enough to understand the Gospel, repent of sins and embrace Christ as Savior, any more than you would make the family dog a “disciple.”**