A) We do not consider infants of a Christian household “nonbelievers.” Even John the Baptist “leapt for joy” in his mother’s womb when the Lord entered the house.
That’s great, but why do you do that, i.e., believe and practice believer’s baptism 100%? Because Jesus said to, right? And the only place He said to do that is in Matt. 28:19-20. And what I’ve been saying and saying and saying again is, believer’s baptism is the only kind of baptism that He said to do in that passage. He never said to baptize nonbelievers or infants.
How do you know what an Apostle taught, and how can you verify that he, in fact, did teach it, if you don’t have a tape recording of a sermon he preached, or a copy of a book he wrote? For example, someone who is now deceased, say, Jerry Falwell, is claimed by someone who knew him, say, Mr. Bill Smith, to have taught XYZ. If I don’t have a book written by JF which teaches XYZ, and I don’t have a sermon tape which has JF saying or teaching XYZ, how do I really know JF ever taught XYZ? BS could say “I heard JF say XYZ,” but is that enough? No book, no recording. How do I know JF ever taught XYZ?
The Didache teaches infant baptism? Can you quote it? When was it written and by whom?
**A man could have ten children and then become a eunuch. You’re familiar with vasectomies, right? **
**What household a person is born into and who is in that household—Christians or devil worshippers—does not determine whether that person is a believer or a nonbeliever. It would certainly have a great influence over whether the infant becomes a believer in Christ or not. But that is all—an influence. Until each infant has the capacity to believe and then actually does believe, he or she is not a believer. That is true based on any rational, logical definition of “believer” that I am aware of.
**Who says I even think the RCC existed 300 years before the NT was canonized? **
Good Lord, man. You do know what a “eunuch” is, right?
Well, we have the paper trail. If it wasn’t the Catholic Church that canonized the New Testament, then it wasn’t canonized at all. Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 & 398, ratified by the Bishop of Rome. Seven hundred years before the Great Schism. This isn’t a theological point. It’s plain raw history.
God can do anything, including “imbuing” grace without personal awareness. That is not the issue. The issue is, does God have infants come into this world as believers or as simply infants believing nothing until they reach a maturity sufficient for the child to have the capacity to understand he is a sinner and in need of a Savior, that Jesus is that Savior Who died for his sins, and that he needs to accept Him and believe in Him for his soul’s salvation. Until he does that, he is not a “disciple” that should be baptized. That is what I conclude from WHAT JESUS SAID. He said repentance and remission of sins was to be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47). There is no indication that was to be preached to infants. The audience of all the passages of the Great Commission is sinners who need to repent and believe the Gospel, not infants.
Often the Scriptures were read in the Mass, similar to how it is today. But what was read as Scriptures differed. For instance, the Church in Corinth read St. Clement’s letter to them (circa 90AD) for over a decade as though they were Scriptures. Hebrews had been considered Scriptures in the Eastern Church from the earliest times, but the western Church didn’t think of it as Scriptural until the 4th century.
But infants are being trained long before they understand it to become disciples. And with the Graces of Baptism already inbued in these infants, the child has a better chance of achieving his discipleship!!!
I agree that what household a person is born into does not determine whether that person is or is not a believer. I never said it did. That I agree with mercygate that they would have baptized all in a household, does not mean I agree with mercygate that all in the household were believers. I gave the reasons that they baptized all in the household, they did so because the head of the household was a believer. And for that same reason today, believing parents bring their children to be baptized and make a pledge to raise them as disciples of Christ.
As long as it’s a CHRISTIAN religion, the sacrament of Baptism is valid.
**For me to say your interpretation is wrong is not the same as saying you don’t have the right to interpret the Bible for yourself as you feel guided by the Holy Spirit, as I claim for myself. So, how am I being hypocritical? We both have the same right. You are free to say my interpretation is wrong, as you have, and I am free to say yours is wrong, as I have. But obviously we cannot both be guided by the Holy Spirit if we arrive at conflicting interpretations.
So whom should we take our dispute to? Who determines which one of us is guided by the Holy Spirit? If either of us? That’s why SS is dangerous. Isn’t the Church the final arbiter between disputes?(Matt. 18:15-17.) John 17:11 says the Church is one as Jesus and God are one. Can the Father and Son disagree on doctrine? They believe the same thing on matters of faith and morals. Are we, as Catholics right in listening to the Church in matters of faith and morals? The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, correct?