Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[fierysword1920]

That is absolutely the truth. I am going to be a real parent and indoctrinate my kid into the true church of Christ=THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Perhaps you won’t do these things because your too lazy phil. I’m not gonna sit idly by and just pray that God is going to take care of all these things for me. I have have to have and maintain an active stance in these things because I am the spiritual head of my household which is commanded by God. My kid may not understand these things the way I do, but it is in the act or application of doing these things with her that pleases God and brings her nearer to him. So I don’t limit the Power and Grace of God like you and say that only older children can be a part of his family. I do these things because I know better than you that God transcends all things and especially your man made doctrines of devils.
Saying these things in repetition is comely to the ears of God. I’m sure you have read where God states that multiplication of words during prayer is not the way, which is what protestants do. We are to pray like the publican and not the pharisee which is what you guys do. This is why we say two beautiful prayers, those being the OUR FATHER and HAIL MARY, because they give glory to GOD and his most perfect creature, MOTHER MARY! And before you go and use the same stupid and tired old line that we Catholics worship Mary, look closely at how I described her, I said she is the most perfect creature, which means created. God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not created.

 

[fierysword1920]

Oh and another thing phil we have already reproved your argument about quoting scripture. the whole of the true faith is not set upon scripture alone, it also based upon tradition greatly that was imparted orally. Your Sola scriptura basis impresses me not in the least. That is why your faith is incomplete.

 

[fierysword1920]

One more thing, I am curious that you did not respond when I stated that your faith cannot be true because it did not come to reality until the year 1527. How is that phil, is it just like the way that you and the other bible thumpers pick and choose scripture to best suit you and your own self concieved realities? My church was concieved at the latest date which was when Saint Peter was given the keys and that is the latest possible time. Protestantism reminds me a little bit of Islam, where words and meanings are rewritten to fit the evil reformers frames of mind to say what they want and Islam is even older than your faith bya millenium. Perhaps thats where Luther and the boys learned it.

 

[MariaG]

Hey, I have an idea. Let’s just all admit that Jesus only told them to baptize the disciples they made out of all nations, not infants, and then we can move on to other, perhaps more important matters. OK? Sound like a plan, everyone?

No, sadly, not one that I could in good conscience do since I do in fact believe you are completely wrong.

And I consider nothing more important than the salvation of my children, so I can’t even agree that there are “more important matter”.

But how about starting a new thread discussing scripture alone, and where that belief is in scripture in a new thread? That one should be simple for you since I am sure since you follow scripture alone, that scripture must teach this quite explicitly and clearly.

 

[fierysword1920]

I agree this is mundane and unfruitful, let phil believe whatever he wants its himself and his family that he is responsible for. Let’s move on. Turn on the juice and see what shakes loose somewhere else.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Hey folks, some people put a few good questions to me last week, and I fully intended to reply, but I came on here after the weekend to several new pages and I just can’t keep up. So, I’m bowing out. If anyone is waiting for my personal response to a question or two, just PM me and I will be glad to address that, but I can no longer keep up with this thread’s pace. My apologies.

 

[MariaG]

Hey folks, some people put a few good questions to me last week, and I fully intended to reply, but I came on here after the weekend to several new pages and I just can’t keep up. So, I’m bowing out. If anyone is waiting for my personal response to a question or two, just PM me and I will be glad to address that, but I can no longer keep up with this thread’s pace. My apologies.

I hear you! I have a few that I just can’t stay on top of.

One way to “keep up” if you still desire to do so is to post a reply where you are at. Then when you come back, it will take you to your reply. Then hit the button it will take you back to where you left off. Did that make any sense:whacky:

Delayed action and replies, but although I have not personally asked you any questions, I have been following along and would be interested in your responses however belated

But thanks for your sincere efforts

God Bless,
Maria

 

[jmcrae]

You are basing an entire teaching on a “probably” since there was no command to baptize anyone other than disciples made of all nations (Matt. 28) or “he who believes” (Mark 16). Admit it—there is not a single instance of an entire household being baptized that unequivocally states any infants were baptized simply because their parents believed and were baptized. NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE.

Do you think that the other adults in the household of the jailer had received Catechism classes, or knew anything about Jesus? No - they were baptized on account of the faith of the jailer himself - they had no faith of their own yet, having never even met any member of the Church before the jailer brought St. Paul and St. Silas home with him that night, and yet, all were baptized that very night. If the adults, then why not the children?

And to suppose that a household of that era would be at all likely contain no children is to suppose that they were modern-day birth-control-using Protestants, rather than faithful Jews or even ordinary Gentiles - married women of that day were a) pregnant, b) had just given birth, or c) about to get pregnant, and if she had been married more than a year, chances are good that she was two out of three on that list.

So you are arguing from total silence in the scriptural record and based on total conjecture. YOU have the burden of proof and YOU have to prove infants were baptized, not me prove they were prevented. No one can prove a negative, other than by looking at the positive statements of who

 

[NotWorthy]

And to suppose that a household of that era would be at all likely contain no children is to suppose that they were modern-day birth-control-using Protestants,

Danger, Danger, hypocrisy alert!!
Sadly, the Protestants of today do not have a monopoly on birth control. Do you really want to open up that can of worms?

rather than faithful Jews or even ordinary Gentiles - married women of that day were a) pregnant, b) had just given birth, or c) about to get pregnant, and if she had been married more than a year, chances are good that she was two out of three on that list.

But that’s not all the household included. It included servants and slaves. As the family circle gets larger, so are the chances that there are children within the circle.

Jesus said to baptize “all.”

Since “all” included women (who were not considered legal “persons” until the early part of the 20th century) why should it not have included children, as well? Especially since their sons had higher status than they did.

As has been pointed out, the baptism ritual of the New Covenant replaced the circumcision ritual of the Old Covenant, which took place on the eighth day. One of the first recorded debates in the early Church was the debate over whether an infant had to wait all eight days before being baptized, or whether he could be baptized at an age younger than eight days. It did not even occur to the Apostles to make the children of Christian parents wait any longer than eight days for baptism.

 

[jmcrae]

Danger, Danger, hypocrisy alert!!
Sadly, the Protestants of today do not have a monopoly on birth control.

Yes, but Catholics who do so were taught to do so by Protestant doctors and health professionals. If there were no Protestants in the world, then no Catholic would be using the stuff, and children would still be considered a sign of favour from God, rather than “a burden.”

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, but Catholics who do so were taught to do so by Protestant doctors and health professionals. If there were no Protestants in the world, then no Catholic would be using the stuff, and children would still be considered a sign of favour from God, rather than “a burden.”

Even though I’m Catholic can I throw a flag on that call?!?

The Devil influences Christians to sin. We can’t all act like the High Priest Aaron, trying to explain the golden calf by saying, it’s their fault, they gave me this jewelry, I threw it in the fire, and out came a calf"!!!

 

[jmcrae]

Even though I’m Catholic can I throw a flag on that call?!?

The Devil influences Christians to sin. We can’t all act like the High Priest Aaron, trying to explain the golden calf by saying, it’s their fault, they gave me this jewelry, I threw it in the fire, and out came a calf"!!!

I think it is perfectly fair to say that the Devil has a lot of human help.

Usually if you find a Catholic disobeying the Church, it is because someone from outside the Church convinced him to do so. Normally, they don’t come up with these ideas all by themselves.

 

[Donna_P]

Who did Jesus tell them to baptize? Search the entire scriptural record of the early church (the Book of Acts) and tell me who His disciples, in fact, baptized. Can you find a single verse that unequivocably says a nonbeliever (whether infant or adult) was baptized with the hope that maybe some day they will become a believer in Jesus Christ?

Dear Phil,

May God be with you.

I believe you can find many passages where whole HOUSEHOLDS were indeed baptized. Households included chidlren.

How ever, find me one passage that says children and infants were NOT to be baptized.

The truth is that since the times of the Old Testament, God has encouraged children to be brought to Him. Example: Circumcision of babies at 8 days of age. Christ telling his apostles to let the little children come to Him.

So, I will wait for your Scripture denying Baptism to children.

God bless you.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think it is perfectly fair to say that the Devil has a lot of human help.

Usually if you find a Catholic disobeying the Church, it is because someone from outside the Church convinced him to do so. Normally, they don’t come up with these ideas all by themselves.

I just think it’s wrong to claim it’s the Protestants fault for any of our weaknesses.

For instance, every major heresy that’s infected the Catholic Church, began within Her clergy.

 

[Phil12123]

Admit it, there is not a single instance of a baby being denied baptism.NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE.

You are using household baptisms to say infant baptism was practiced and therefore is valid. But you cannot show where any of those households actually had any infants and that they were baptized based on the faith of their parents. Why would I need to show infants were denied baptism, if you cannot show they were ever given baptism? The words of Christ in Matt. 28 and Mark 16 do not say infants should be baptized. You are saying, in spite of that, that the household baptisms in the NT probably included infants (one unproven assumption) and that those nonbelieving infants were actually baptized along with those in the household who heard the Gospel and believed it (another unproven assumption). Based on what Jesus commanded, it is a far more reasonable assumption that no infants were baptized if in fact there were any in a household. Only those in the household who heard and believed the Gospel and repented were baptized. Why is that so hard to accept? It should be a no-brainer.

In the meantime, try and remember your arguments on “Bring the Children to me, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these”. It fell short the first time, but you can try it again.

**In what respect did it fall short? The children coming, or being brought, to Jesus were held by Him and blessed, and none of them are shown being baptized, so how is that even relevant to this discussion? Because it’s about children? So what? What does it have to do with baptizing infants?
**

 

[jmcrae]

**In what respect did it fall short? The children coming, or being brought, to Jesus were held by Him and blessed, and none of them are shown being baptized, so how is that even relevant to this discussion? Because it’s about children? So what? What does it have to do with baptizing infants?
**

We cannot be with Christ if we are not baptized. By withholding baptism from children, we are withholding Christ from them, because in modern times, and indeed, ever since the Resurrection, the means of coming to Christ is to be baptized.

The Early Fathers understood this very well - I refer you to Tertullian’s essay on Baptism, to see what they believed in the Early Church about baptism. It is not just a symbol of something that happened in the person’s imagination - it’s the reality of how we actually come to Jesus.

 

[Phil12123]

Let’s pose a scenario: Today, a modern-day Paul and Silas preach to a household and it includes 1 infant, 1 child 15 years old, 1 child 25 years old, and a father and mother. They all hear the Gospel that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose again, and that if they repent and believe that message they will not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16 etc.). Let’s say the 1 infant responds by pooping his diaper and crying for his mother’s milk. The 15-year old child responds by saying, “Yeah, right,” and walks out of the room to go play a video game. The 25-year old says, “I’m not that big of a sinner, so who cares if He died for my sins?” The father says, “I believe it!!” The mother says, “I don’t have time to think about that right now. I have to change a diaper and feed my baby.” Paul and Silas decide to move on to the next household with their Gospel message. But before they leave, WHO, of the five household members, should they baptize, and WHY?

 

[jmcrae]

Let’s pose a scenario: Today, a modern-day Paul and Silas preach to a household and it includes 1 infant, 1 child 15 years old, 1 child 25 years old, and a father and mother. They all hear the Gospel that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose again, and that if they repent and believe that message they will not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16 etc.). Let’s say the 1 infant responds by pooping his diaper and crying for his mother’s milk. The 15-year old child responds by saying, “Yeah, right,” and walks out of the room to go play a video game. The 25-year old says, “I’m not that big of a sinner, so who cares if He died for my sins?” The father says, “I believe it!!” The mother says, “I don’t have time to think about that right now. I have to change a diaper and feed my baby.” Paul and Silas decide to move on to the next household with their Gospel message. But before they leave, WHO, of the five household members, should they baptize, and WHY?

According to the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, they baptized all of them, on the basis of their father’s faith; it was simply assumed that the whole family would be Christian.

Up until very, very recently, nobody ever waited to give their children a choice of whether they would become Christian and go to church - children born into Christian families were baptized Christian and then taken to Church from the time they were tiny infants.

The very concept of not baptizing and raising your child in the Christian faith, if you were a Christian, was seen as a sin. I have a friend who was taken to Church and baptized the same day that she was born - she has stronger faith in God than anyone I know, probably because she never had even the glimmer of an opportunity to practice being a heathen and an unbeliever.

I truly believe that the longer a person lives without the Gospel, the harder it is for them to convert - and because of that, it just boggles my mind that any loving parent would deprive their child of the Gospel for any longer than it takes to get to Church and arrange the Baptism - it is truly mind-blowing that parents would say, “Well, we have to wait until he chooses Jesus for himself.”

You drag the kid kicking and screaming all the way to school if he doesn’t want to go, because he won’t get a good job without a good education - but you’re willing to gamble your child’s eternal life on what he wants, instead of what you know to be good for him? It really makes me wonder where people’s priorities are.

 

[NotWorthy]

You are using household baptisms to say infant baptism was practiced and therefore is valid. But you cannot show where any of those households actually had any infants and that they were baptized based on the faith of their parents. Why would I need to show infants were denied baptism, if you cannot show they were ever given baptism? The words of Christ in Matt. 28 and Mark 16 do not say infants should be baptized. You are saying, in spite of that, that the household baptisms in the NT probably included infants (one unproven assumption) and that those nonbelieving infants were actually baptized along with those in the household who heard the Gospel and believed it (another unproven assumption). Based on what Jesus commanded, it is a far more reasonable assumption that no infants were baptized if in fact there were any in a household. Only those in the household who heard and believed the Gospel and repented were baptized. Why is that so hard to accept? It should be a no-brainer.**
**

Phil, I thought I made my point clear yesterday. Evidently not, so I’ll repeat it.

**Phil, for about a month, you’ve accused Catholics of disobeying Jesus, of fighting him. I’ve tried to be patient with this accusation, but I’m simply tired of it. Unless you go back to the patient and loving Phil that we’ve come to know and love (My goodness, we were singing “Kumbaya” just two days ago!!!), then I’m not going to deal with you anymore.
**
No one has accused you of willfully disobeying and fighting Jesus. We’d only like the same respect from you, even if we disagree with you.

You can at least respect our beliefs instead of making yourself look petty by claiming we’re fighting Jesus’ words.

Phil, over the last month, I’ve received several PM’s contgratulating me on how patient I’ve been with you. I believe I’ve just received my last PM on that issue.

 

[Phil12123]

We cannot be with Christ if we are not baptized. By withholding baptism from children, we are withholding Christ from them, because in modern times, and indeed, ever since the Resurrection, the means of coming to Christ is to be baptized.

Did the jailor come to Christ by being baptized? Or by doing what Paul told him to do, in response to his question, “What must I do to be saved?” Namely, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” He came to Christ by faith, by believing the Gospel. Thereafter, he was baptized (along with everyone in his house, all of whom also believed the word of the Lord spoken to them by Paul). Baptism is not the means of coming to Christ. Believing the Gospel is.