Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[NotWorthy]

Phil, look at it this way. Aren’t you interested in your family tree?

When someone says the Real Presence hasn’t always been taught by the church (maybe that Catholic “invented” it in the 4th century or so… where DO people get these numbers), isn’t it a valuable tool to be able to show proof that the Real Presence has been taught by EVERY generation since the first century? That we may not have understood it as deeply as the early Church, but we did KNOW Jesus was there in the Eucharist, just as we know that today!

 

[Lampo]

**I’m still wondering if you have read my post because you have not addressed my main point, which is, the context requires those who would receive the promise to REPENT. Infants cannot repent, nor do they need to, but what Peter said clearly requires it, so he has to be talking about and to non-infants.

Lampo, this has been an interesting dialogue, but I tire of repeating myself, and that seems to be necessary when you post something repeatedly as if I’ve never responded to it. You have brought up various points several times, all of which I have already responded to. For example, you enjoy repeating the one-liner, "There is nothing in the Bible about “believer’s baptism,” and yet I have responded to that once. Do I need to copy and paste my response every time you say that? If not, why do you keep saying it, without saying why my response is not true? Would you like me to repeatedly say, There’s nothing in the Bible about “infant baptism,” ignoring anything you say to dispute that, as if you had no response?**

No, you don’t need to repeat yourself this time. I will try and do better reading your responses. Sorry.

The verse does not restrict baptism to adults because Peter says the promise is to infants as well. Just because Peter says “repent,” does not restrict baptism to adults. The most desirable way to come to the waters of baptism is as an infant (in which case its based on the parent’s faith); if you learn of Christ later, you come based on your own faith. Nothing in Scripture ever excludes infants from the promises of Christ.

 

[Lampo]

So where does the Lord Jesus Christ say to do that? And if He wants us to do that today, why don’t we see Him or His disciples doing it with any of the infants or young children who were brought to Him by their parents?

Mark 10:
13. Then they brought young children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
14. But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.
15. "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.’’
16. And He took them up in His arms, put His hands on them, and blessed them.

He held them and blessed them but it doesn’t say anything about Jesus baptizing them, with a parent or some other person making “a declaration of faith” on the infant’s behalf, later to be affirmed or rejected by the infant. That is totally foreign to anything taught in the Gospels, Acts, or any of the epistles. There is not even a hint of it anywhere in Scripture.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that “teknon” includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

 

[Phil12123]

Did I say they were the ONLY determinant for being Scriptural? I did say that the books that were selected did agree with the Church’s teaching (that’s a no-brainer, of course they’d do that…) but not that this was the only litmus test.

Why aren’t they the only determinant of faith? Read the Bible! It tells you that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

The ECF’s are the testament to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries all the way through to today! They are a part of the Church today!!! Why should I ignore them?

**Why are you turning this thread into a discussion of sola scriptura? Because you want to avoid the clear command of Christ to make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM… teaching THEM…"? You want to look anywhere else you can to find something that says baptize babies, who are nonbelievers, nondisciples, and, therefore, noncandidates for baptism.

Let’s stick to the subject. WHO did Jesus say to baptize? That is what we are talking about. If a ECF can show Jesus said to baptize babies, I’d like to see it. NOT what man has decided to do, but what JESUS said to do. And it is a no-brainer that if a ECF said something that contradicts what Jesus said, we should all reject it as heresy. Right?

Why is anyone making this so difficult? It is really very simple. Just obey what Jesus said to do. How can you go wrong if you do that, and simply that?

Even with all the miracles Jesus did, with raising Lazarus perhaps being the clincher, they still wanted to crucify Him. That always amazed me. Why would they be so hard-hearted, unyielding, and unwilling to hear the truth from His lips? Could it be they had certain traditions that they followed for perhaps centuries, or had important positions they occupied for maybe decades, or saw the multitudes of people listening to Him rather than them? Maybe the chief sin was pride, with an unwillingness to admit that He spoke the truth, not them.

Are we still doing that today? Could it be that what He told His disciples to do, just before He ascended, reveals to us that perhaps we haven’t been doing that, haven’t been truly obeying that, haven’t been fullfilling His calling and commission? Or are we unwilling to listen to His words today either? Back then, they wanted to stop Him, silence Him, crucify Him. And today? Do we still want to stop Him, silence Him…crucify Him afresh? Or do we want to simply submit and obey Him?

Peace**

 

[boppaid]

The verse does not restrict baptism to adults because Peter says the promise is to infants as well. Just because Peter says “repent,” does not restrict baptism to adults.

This is what I have a hard time understanding. How does an infant “repent” as we are told to do before being baptized?

 

[Lampo]

This is what I have a hard time understanding. How does an infant “repent” as we are told to do before being baptized?

The infant can’t repent. Peter was speaking to the parents of the infants. He was telling the parents to repent, for the promise of baptism was for them and their children (Greek, teknon). The parents are called to make an act of faith on behalf of their infants because their infants cannot. But this should pose no problem for you, since the Scriptures are full of examples of Jesus effecting healing based on the faith of others.

For example, Jesus healed the paralytic based on the faith of those who brought him. Jesus heals the faith of the centurion’s servant based on the faith of the centurion. Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. In the Old Testament, God spared the first-born son based on the parent’s faith.

Now, let me ask you a question: If God is willing to effect physical and spiritual cures for children based on the faith of their parents, how much more will he bring children into the New Covenant of grace based on the faith of their parents?

 

[onenow1]

So where does the Lord Jesus Christ say to do that? And if He wants us to do that today, why don’t we see Him or His disciples doing it with any of the infants or young children who were brought to Him by their parents?

Logically now Phil would’nt Jesus want the faith of the father and mother to prevail over the infant ?

Jesus Christ said in Matthew 28:19, “GO, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…”
He did not say adults only did he? Did he ever put an age limit to receive Baptism?

If Jesus thought it was necessary to be washed even though he had no sin, how much more appropriate for a child with the stain of original sin.

JOHN 21: 25 There are many other things Jesus did, if it were written down in detail, I do not suppose the whole world would hold all the books that would be written.

Comment: Here I think John is telling us to hold on to, some tradition ?

Colossians 2
10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;
12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.

1Peter 3.
20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Comment:
In 1 Peter 3, the faith of Noah saved the family, obedience to God through Noah.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. This is all very helpful.

Regading the corelation with circumcision, what about this verse…doesn’t it contradict that?:

“Romans 2:29
No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.”

If circumcision is now of the heart, that seems to indicate that it is not an outward act any longer.

This verse actually supports baptismal regeneration. We receive the Spirit when we are baptized, and accepted as members of the Body of Christ till the age of reason when we either fully accept Him or reject Him. Did not Jesus say hinder not the little children to come to me?

 

[NotWorthy]

**Why are you turning this thread into a discussion of sola scriptura? **

:ehh:

 

[Phil12123]

We receive the Spirit when we are baptized, and accepted as members of the Body of Christ till the age of reason when we either fully accept Him or reject Him.

**Consider how things would be if we baptize only disciples or believers, as Christ commanded. The child, at the age of reason, makes a decision to accept or reject Him. Let’s say he accepts Christ. He receives God’s gift of eternal life, and God’s Spirit comes in to regenerate him and empower him to live a life pleasing to God. He is then baptized to identify him with all the other believers. But, you ask, what about all the infants and children who die before the age of reason without being baptized?

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to say, based on the mercies of God and the atonement of Christ, an infant or baby is “safe” (as opposed to “saved”) until the age of reason when he either accepts Christ or rejects Him? Safe in terms of not being accountable for sin (which Christ nevertheless paid for), therefore he goes to heaven before reaching that age of reason. But at the age of reason he is accountable and if he doesn’t accept Him, he goes to hell if he died just then. That would cover all the millions of aborted babies as well as infants and young children who don’t have godly parents to “make decisions of faith on their behalf,” but who die before the age of reason, say, from disease or disaster. That would also relieve us of having to make up scripturally unsupportable doctrines like baptizing babies, which Christ neither commanded nor practiced Himself.

Another thing: There has been much said comparing circumcision and baptism, in spite of all I said distinguishing the two. Consider this: If circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant and of a male being a Jew, was it also regenerative, or just a sign or symbol? Did it do anything to a male infant spiritually or supernaturally, or just mark him as a Jew? **

Did not Jesus say hinder not the little children to come to me?

**Yes, but why did He say that? So they could get to him for Him to baptize them? No. Read the text, or read my post quoting it.

Peace
**

 

[NotWorthy]

**Why are you turning this thread into a discussion of sola scriptura? Because you want to avoid the clear command of Christ to make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM… teaching THEM…"? You want to look anywhere else you can to find something that says baptize babies, who are nonbelievers, nondisciples, and, therefore, noncandidates for baptism.**Yes, I understand compeletely Phil. If my forefathers, who were closer to Jesus than I was, didn’t agree with what I do, I’d do my best to minimize their knowledge of salvation as well. It’s pretty clear.

**

Let’s stick to the subject. WHO did Jesus say to baptize? That is what we are talking about. If a ECF can show Jesus said to baptize babies, I’d like to see it. NOT what man has decided to do, but what JESUS said to do.

****But to your point, Phil, what did Jesus mean when he said “Let the children (i.e. infants) come to me, for surely the kingdom of God belongs to such as these”. (Paraphrase). Why does Paul tell the jailer, ** And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.” Then Paul baptizes everyone? You think Paul knew the jailer and his servants and such well enough to know that none of them were infants?

**And it is a no-brainer that if a ECF said something that contradicts what Jesus said, we should all reject it as heresy. Right?**No, Tertullian tried that, and he was branded a heretic. When he wrote sound doctrine, he was praised. When he wrote heresy, he was condemned. A simple study of the ECF’s, your Christian fore-fathers, would reveal this.

Why is anyone making this so difficult? It is really very simple. Just obey what Jesus said to do. How can you go wrong if you do that, and simply that?

Very few called this heresy to after Luther’s little debacle, years after Luther. Why are you following doctrines of men. I’m following doctrine that has been applied since Apostolic times.

Even with all the miracles Jesus did, with raising Lazarus perhaps being the clincher, they still wanted to crucify Him. That always amazed me. Why would they be so hard-hearted, unyielding, and unwilling to hear the truth from His lips? Could it be they had certain traditions that they followed for perhaps centuries, or had important positions they occupied for maybe decades, or saw the multitudes of people listening to Him rather than them? Maybe the chief sin was pride, with an unwillingness to admit that He spoke the truth, not them.

Perhaps another thread, for you’re assuming this applies here. I don’t see it.

Are we still doing that today? Could it be that what He told His disciples to do, just before He ascended, reveals to us that perhaps we haven’t been doing that, haven’t been truly obeying that, haven’t been fullfilling His calling and commission? Or are we unwilling to listen to His words today either? Back then, they wanted to stop Him, silence Him, crucify Him. And today? Do we still want to stop Him, silence Him…crucify Him afresh? Or do we want to simply submit and obey Him?

Start another thread for this. You’re simply making baseless accusation in my opinion. Sigh…

Peace

 

[NotWorthy]

**Consider how things would be if we baptize only disciples or believers, as Christ commanded. ****
**

Please tell me where Christ commands this.

 

[Phil12123]

Please tell me where Christ commands this.

**Matthew 28:19-20. Did you just jump into this discussion? Go back to my first post in this thread and read from there:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2483880#post2483880

Thanks.

Peace**

 

[Phil12123]

It starts at post #105 on page 7.

 

[Benadam]

******There has been much said comparing circumcision and baptism, in spite of all I said distinguishing the two. Consider this: If circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant and of a male being a Jew, was it also regenerative, or just a sign or symbol? Did it do anything to a male infant spiritually or supernaturally, or just mark him as a Jew? ******

**John Ch. 7- 23

If a man receive circumcision on the sabbath day, that the law of Moses may not be broken; are you angry at me because I have healed the whole man on the sabbath day?

***After Jesus heals on the Sabbath he appeals to the act of circumcision. In doing so He reveals the true reason the act is not subject to the Sabbath. The Jews saw it as an act subject to the Law if not the Sabbath law. Jesus points out that it is an act of divine healing which is not subject to any law but an act that law it’self conforms too. ***

**Joshua 5-*8 ***

Now after they were all circumcised, they remained in the same place of the camp, until they were healed. 9 And the Lord said to Josue: This day have I taken away from you the reproach of Egypt.

In the above passage we see the obedient human act of circumcising compells a supernatural divine healing act of God. The words’This Day’ express a point in time or union with the healing that comes after the act of circumcision rather than, or at least as well as, with the act of circumcising since it is obviously after all were circumcised. It seems that the physical healing of the flesh and the spiritual healing of reproach are hypostatic in this passage. Here the act of circumcision brings about a redemptive suffering and a supernatural healing because it is attached to a supernatural healing that redeems .

If Baptism is an outward sign of membership by an act of human obedience just as circumcision is an outward sign of membership by an act of human obedience, it follows that, just as circumcision is attached to a supernatural divine healing act of God, Baptism is attached to a supernatural divine healing act of God.**

 

[Phil12123]

Yes, I understand compeletely Phil. If my forefathers, who were closer to Jesus than I was, didn’t agree with what I do, I’d do my best to minimize their knowledge of salvation as well. It’s pretty clear.

Do you believe Jesus said the words He is recorded by Matthew as having said in Matt. 28:19-20? Yes or no? If yes, how is anything my forefathers said, or anything you say, or anything I say, of any relevance? Is there anything ambiguous about what He said? Do you need extra-biblical writings or sayings to clarify what He said? Should we look at Ignatius or Jerome or Augustine to understand what Jesus said? Am I minimizing those men when I say we don’t need them to understand what He said? What part of what He said do you NOT understand?

But to your point, Phil, what did Jesus mean when he said “Let the children (i.e. infants) come to me, for surely the kingdom of God belongs to such as these”. (Paraphrase).

Well, He probably was referring to their relative innocence, their ability to have childlike faith, and other similar qualities that we adults should have. But notice that Jesus did not baptize any of them, did He? Furthermore, if the kingdom of God belongs to such as them, why would they need baptism? In any event, He didn’t say the kingdom of God belongs to them after they get baptized, did He?

Why does Paul tell the jailer, ** And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved**.” Then Paul baptizes everyone? You think Paul knew the jailer and his servants and such well enough to know that none of them were infants?

It may be that the jailer was advanced in years and unlikely to have children who were infants. Or Paul’s statement may have been merely prophetic, inspired by the Holy Spirit, like his epistles were inspired. We need not speculate, because in fact all of his household heard the gospel and believed. There were no infants there and none baptized. So that passage does nothing to further your attempt to ignore, deny, or refute the words of Christ, or twist them to suit your purposes.
NotWorthy;2492774:

Why are you following doctrines of men.

**So, you conclude my desire for us to follow the words of Christ makes me “following doctrines of men”? **

I’m following doctrine that has been applied since Apostolic times.

**That is of little import if it does not follow the words of Christ. Any doctrine that has been applied since Apostolic times should be in agreement with what Jesus told the Apostles and, if not, should be discarded as violating what He told them. Again, the only reason we baptize anyone is because Jesus told us to. But we must follow His instructions and baptize ONLY WHO He told us to. Very simple. Anything added to that is doctrines of men.

Peace
**

 

[NotWorthy]

**Matthew 28:19-20. Did you just jump into this discussion? Go back to my first post in this thread and read from there:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2483880#post2483880**

Thanks.

Peace

I’m sorry, but nowhere in your post does it say only those old enough.

You see, Catholics take a look at all of Scripture. And when we see whole households, we think “hmmmm…, let’s look further”. Then we see where Baptism replaces Circumcision, which was done as early as 8 days old, and we think, “Hmmm…, look’s pretty strong, but let’s look further”. Then we take a look at the early church, and we see Infant Baptisms taking place in the first century, while the Apostles were still alive, and we don’t see any complaints regarding it until our beloved Tertullian in the 3rd century, and we think, “Man, what’s all the fuss. Why should we have to apologize for following the Sacred Traditions handed down to us from Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church”.

 

[NotWorthy]

Do you believe Jesus said the words He is recorded by Matthew as having said in Matt. 28:19-20? Yes or no? If yes, how is anything my forefathers said, or anything you say, or anything I say, of any relevance? Is there anything ambiguous about what He said? Do you need extra-biblical writings or sayings to clarify what He said? Should we look at Ignatius or Jerome or Augustine to understand what Jesus said? Am I minimizing those men when I say we don’t need them to understand what He said? What part of what He said do you NOT understand?Ah, brother Phil, I do understand. Christ wants to make disciples of all of us. Period. He wants to baptize us. All of us. Period.

**

Well, He probably was referring to their relative innocence, their ability to have childlike faith, and other similar qualities that we adults should have. But notice that Jesus did not baptize any of them, did He? Furthermore, if the kingdom of God belongs to such as them, why would they need

baptism? In any event, He didn’t say the kingdom of God belongs to them after they get baptized, did He?**probably? probably? Are you adding to Scripture Phil? No, the kingdom belongs to them. Why baptize them? Because Christ wants us to.

Did I notice that Jesus didn’t baptize them? Of course He didn’t. Jesus didn’t baptize anyone in Scripture. But his apostles did, Phil.

**

It may be that the jailer was advanced in years and unlikely to have children who were infants. Or Paul’s statement may have been merely prophetic, inspired by the Holy Spirit, like his epistles were inspired. We need not speculate, because in fact all of his household heard the gospel and believed. There were no infants there and none baptized. So that passage does nothing to further your attempt to ignore, deny, or refute the words of Christ, or twist them to suit your purposes.

**Phil, how do you KNOW there were no infants? It looks like you’ve put on your own reading lense and interpreting it according to this lense.

Paul was speaking to the Jailer and to all Christians. Don’t you understand the multiple layers of Scripture. If Paul is speaking to us, shouldn’t he make that stipulation?

**So, you conclude my desire for us to follow the words of Christ makes me “following doctrines of men”? **

No, I conclude that the Religious Faiths that have dropped infant Baptisms,a practice that has gone on in the Christian Community for nearly 2000 years, have created doctrines of their own.

**

That is of little import if it does not follow the words of Christ. Any doctrine that has been applied since Apostolic times should be in agreement with what Jesus told the Apostles and, if not, should be discarded as violating what He told them. Again, the only reason we baptize anyone is because Jesus told us to. But we must follow His instructions and baptize ONLY WHO He told us to. Very simple. Anything added to that is doctrines of men.

Peace

**Show me again where Jesus says baptize only those of an age of reason, and I will shout out “Amen”!!!

You see, Phil, Catholics do not consider themselves a part of the Kingdom until they are baptized. Hence, when Jesus says, “The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these”, this means infants are to be baptize". Notice Jesus says, “Let the Children come to me”. We come to Jesus initially in baptism,

 

[Phil12123]

I’m sorry, but nowhere in your post does it say only those old enough.

**What? “only those old enough”? Where did that come from? Are those the words of Christ? NO!! They are not my words either! Why are you fighting the words of Christ so fervently? Do His words offend you? The issue is not age, whether just born or 100 years old. The issue is “make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM… teaching THEM…” Is that really so hard to believe and obey? The issue is not age, it’s conversion. If a one-day old infant can be a disciple (Matt.) or a believer (Mark), then it can be baptized. But we both know, the eleven/twelve did not go out and convert any infants, so none were baptized.

You remind me of Demetrius (Acts 19:24), who was upset with Paul’s preaching because it led many who purchased his idols to stop doing that. He fought against that preaching because it was going to ruin his business. Never mind that idolatry was bad; the main thing is business will suffer without it. It’s like you have some vested interest in NOT following Christ’s words, like it will ruin the baby-baptizing business. Never mind that it is unscriptural and contrary to Christ’s commands; the main thing is to keep this manmade tradition alive and well because to admit that it is against Christ’s command is to admit you’ve been wrong in doing it for centuries. Of course, others saw that 500 years ago and stop doing it, preferring rather to simply obey Christ. But they were/are heretics that should be burned at the stake after they are stretched on the rack. Hmmm…“redemptive suffering.” Sigh.**

You see, Catholics take a look at all of Scripture. And when we see whole households, we think “hmmmm…, let’s look further”. Then we see where Baptism replaces Circumcision, which was done as early as 8 days old, and we think, “Hmmm…, look’s pretty strong, but let’s look further”. Then we take a look at the early church, and we see Infant Baptisms taking place in the first century, while the Apostles were still alive, and we don’t see any complaints regarding it until our beloved Tertullian in the 3rd century, and we think, “Man, what’s all the fuss. Why should we have to apologize for following the Sacred Traditions handed down to us from Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church”.

**You “take a look at all of Scripture”? Did you really look at Matt. 28:19-20? If so, what part of it did you not understand, that required looking at households, or circumcision, or ECF, or anything else? You may have looked at Matt. but the truth is you have ignored it, disobeyed it, and taught against it.

Peace**

 

[Phil12123]

Ah, brother Phil, I do understand. Christ wants to make disciples of all of us. Period. He wants to baptize us. All of us. Period.

Correct, and in that order. Make disciples and baptize those disciples.

No, the kingdom belongs to them. Why baptize them? Because Christ wants us to.

**Now you are adding to scripture. Your paraphrase actually added to scripture and your saying Christ wants us to baptize them, adds to scripture. Where does HE say that? Nowhere. He never says He wants us to baptize infants. **

Did I notice that Jesus didn’t baptize them? Of course He didn’t. Jesus didn’t baptize anyone in Scripture. But his apostles did, Phil.

No, His apostles didn’t. They never baptized infants brought to Jesus for Him to touch and bless. NOT ONCE. EVER. Does that tell you anything?

Phil, how do you KNOW there were no infants? It looks like you’ve put on your own reading lense and interpreting it according to this lense.

Read the passage. They all believed. They were all baptized. If there were any infants, the infants were believers. READ THE PASSAGE. Or read my post that quotes the passage.

Paul was speaking to the Jailer and to all Christians. Don’t you understand the multiple layers of Scripture. If Paul is speaking to us, shouldn’t he make that stipulation?

What did he say to the jailer? “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved and your household.” That is a statement that was for the jailer specifically. That is no guarantee that if I speak to the head of a household, and he is saved, that everyone in that house will be saved too. They all have to believe the gospel to be saved. There are children in many families who reject their parents’ faith and remain stubborn, rebellious children to the day they die. Why do you mention “multiple layers of Scripture”? Are you trying to make God’s promise to the jailer a promise for everyone and every household? As I said, that is not necessarily true for every household. Or would you just baptize everyone in every household and hope that some day they all become believers and get saved? Is that what Christ said to do?

No, I conclude that the Religious Faiths that have dropped infant Baptisms,a practice that has gone on in the Christian Community for nearly 2000 years, have created doctrines of their own.

Ok, Demetrius, I understand your position.

Show me again where Jesus says baptize only those of an age of reason, and I will shout out “Amen”!!!

Why do you persist in putting words into my mouth? Jesus said to baptize disciples made in all nations. Period. You tell me. What age is a person able to become a disciple upon hearing the Gospel preached?

You see, Phil, Catholics do not consider themselves a part of the Kingdom until they are baptized. Hence, when Jesus says, “The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these”, this means infants are to be baptize". Notice Jesus says, “Let the Children come to me”. We come to Jesus initially in baptism,

So, are you saying, Catholics don’t come to Christ initially in repentance and faith? They don’t repent and believe the Gospel? When did you repent and believe the Gospel? Many years after your infant baptism?