Protestant asks a question

  • Thread starter Thread starter marineboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Infants are included in “all nations” who are to be baptized (Matt. 28:19). Certainly they were included in Peter’s Pentecost exhortation in Acts 2:38, 39: “Repent and be baptized everyone one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Whole households, everyone in the family, were baptized in the beginning of New Testament times, which in all probability included infants (Acts 16:15 and 33). [The “household” formula used here by Luke has Old Testament precedent, with special reference also to small children, as for example in 1 Sam. 22:16, 19; see Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, 22-23.] In Romans 6, the Holy Spirit tells us in the Word that in baptism we have been united with Jesus’ death and resurrection – regenerated, dying to sin and rising to new life. That happens to infants when baptized (Gal. 3:27). “For as many of you who have been baptized have put on Christ.” Baptism through the Word creates the faith necessary to receive salvation for infants. Infants can have faith. In Mark 10:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” The Greek word in this text is “paidia” which means babes in arms. Infants can belong to the kingdom of God. “From the lips of children and infants, You have ordained praise…” Psalm 8:2. “Yet You brought me out of the womb, You made me trust in You even at my mother’s breast” Psalm 22:9.

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at Pentecost to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted, the Church has baptized babies. Polycarp (69-155 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) of the next generation, about the year 150 AD, states in his Dialog with Trypho The Jew that baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament." Irenaeus (130-200 AD) writes in Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus came to save all through means of Himself – all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185-254 AD) and Cyprian (215-258 AD), and at the Council of Carthage in 254 where the 66 bishops stated: “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God…especially infants…those newly born.” Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5:9: “For this also it was that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants.” Origen also wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: “Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.” Cyprian’s reply to a bishop who wrote to him regarding the baptism of infants stated: “Should we wait until the 8th day as did the Jews in the circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.”

Augustine (354-430 AD) wrote in De Genesi Ad Literam, 10:39 declared, “The custom of our mother Church in baptizing infants must not be counted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the Apostles.” Augustine further states: "…the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ. In 517 AD, 10 rules of discipline were framed for the Church in Spain. The fifth rule states that “…in case infants were ill…if they were offered, to baptize them, even though it were the day that they were born…such was to be done.” (“The History of Baptism” by Robert Robinson, London, Thomas Knott, 1790, p.269)

This pattern of baptizing infants remained in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until modern times. In the 1500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant baptism was the heretic Tertullian (160-215 AD) who de facto denied original sin. Then in the 1520s the Christian Church experienced opposition specifically to infant baptism under the influence of Thomas Muenzer and other fanatics who opposed both civil and religious authority, original sin and human concupiscence. Thomas’ opposition was then embraced by a considerable number of Swiss, German and Dutch Anabaptists. This brought about strong warning and renunciation by the Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed alike. It was considered a shameless affront to what had been practiced in each generation since Christ’s command in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) to baptize all nations irrespective of age. Historical excerpts are from “Infant Baptism in Early Church History,” by Dr. Dennis Kastens in Issues Etc. Journal, Spring 1997, Vol. 2, No. 3
 
The problem arises in that we are born spiritually dead as expressed in Eph 2:1. We do not have the ability to spiritually come to God. Also, if one were to claim that they chose to be baptized and become Christian then they, in my humble opinion, are boasting about their works of law.

In 2 Cor 2:14 Paul states "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.’

Likewise in Romans 8 states: “because the mind set on the flesh is (P)hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so”

2 Cor 3:5 5Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,
 
It amazes me how someone can insist that any given Catholic doctrine/practice appear whole, explicit and frequently in Scripture yet run around with teachings that are none of the above (infant baptism, Bible alone, and which books belong there in the first place.)

Scott
 
Infants are included in “all nations” who are to be baptized (Matt. 28:19). Certainly they were included in Peter’s Pentecost exhortation in Acts 2:38, 39: "Repent and be baptized everyone one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call."

“All nations” would also include atheists and agnostics too.

The key phrase in Acts 2:38-39 is “Repent and be baptized everyone of you…” Notice repentance precedes baptism. How does an infant repent?

**Whole households, everyone in the family, were baptized in the beginning of New Testament times, which in all probability included infants (Acts 16:15 and 33). **

This is speculation. Scripture is very silent about infant baptism but is pretty explicit about placing conditions on baptism.

Acts 8:36

36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! (AW)What prevents me from being baptized?"37a]And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
The problem arises in that we are born spiritually dead as expressed in Eph 2:1. We do not have the ability to spiritually come to God. Also, if one were to claim that they chose to be baptized and become Christian then they, in my humble opinion, are boasting about their works of law.

In 2 Cor 2:14 Paul states "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.’

Likewise in Romans 8 states: “because the mind set on the flesh is (P)hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so”

2 Cor 3:5 5Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,
I agree with this entirely. This is where is Calvinism comes into the picture.
josiah
 
All this quoting of scripture doesn’t really prove anything as scripture and tradition are one and the same thing.

Where is the catechism of the protestant Faith? Tell me what you believe.

Remember the Bible has many contradictions. You can make it say what you like!

Who chose which books of the bible were to be included in the first place? It was the Church. There were many gospels going around not just the four. Some authority had to choose which were orthodox and which were not.
 
josiah said:
Infants are included in “all nations” who are to be baptized (Matt. 28:19). Certainly they were included in Peter’s Pentecost exhortation in Acts 2:38, 39: "Repent and be baptized everyone one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call."

“All nations” would also include atheists and agnostics too.

The key phrase in Acts 2:38-39 is “Repent and be baptized everyone of you…” Notice repentance precedes baptism. How does an infant repent?

**Whole households, everyone in the family, were baptized in the beginning of New Testament times, which in all probability included infants (Acts 16:15 and 33). **

This is speculation. Scripture is very silent about infant baptism but is pretty explicit about placing conditions on baptism.

Acts 8:36

36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! (AW)What prevents me from being baptized?"37a]And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]

It says repent and be baptized, not repent THEN be baptized. He is speaking to adults, so this is the normative order, you are a million miles away (not to mention 50,000 Authority Poker chips short) from establishing it as an absolute order.

The Acts passage in no way establishes it as a universal, no exceptions rule.

Superpope josiah has not made his case.

Scott
 
josiah said:
Infants are included in “all nations” who are to be baptized (Matt. 28:19). Certainly they were included in Peter’s Pentecost exhortation in Acts 2:38, 39: "Repent and be baptized everyone one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call."

“All nations” would also include atheists and agnostics too.

The key phrase in Acts 2:38-39 is “Repent and be baptized everyone of you…” Notice repentance precedes baptism. How does an infant repent?

**Whole households, everyone in the family, were baptized in the beginning of New Testament times, which in all probability included infants (Acts 16:15 and 33). **

This is speculation. Scripture is very silent about infant baptism but is pretty explicit about placing conditions on baptism.

Acts 8:36

36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! (AW)What prevents me from being baptized?"37a]And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]

First off the oldest manuscripts of Acts omit verse 8:37 and is more of a Western Reading. But let us say that it is Scripture for certain.

We know in the early centuries it was common practice to delay the baptism of Christian converts to assure that they had truly understood their commitment to Christ and were not holding to one of the various heretical beliefs prevalent at that time.

This of course would not apply to infants that do not have heretical beliefs. How is this handled, well with Confirmation of course… this is a reaffirmation of Baptism.

Acts 1:5
for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit."

Also from Acts 8
Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit,
for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit
 
Shibboleth said:

Thank You for the web link !!!
The Large Catechism
by Martin Luther

That was
the Catholic Catechism that Mr. Luther was talking about…he was correct to repremand those that did not read nor study it… just as many do not read nor study it today…he discribes these fellows accurately!!! :clapping: Too bad he edited some things to suit himself.:rolleyes: For starters…Sola Scriptura was a huge mistake !! Martin Luther launched the Protestant Reformation and within Luther’s own lifetime,… John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli were already disputing his teachings. They differed over central doctrines…like the Lord’s Supper… baptism and predestination.** Doctrinal and denominational divisions within Protestantism continue to escalate.** At last count there were more than 33,000 different Protestant “denominations” throughout the world. I think he must be** very** sorry he did that right about now :yup: !!

Shalom,
Catherine
 
Scott Waddell:
…Superpope josiah has not made his case.

Scott
Scott,

I love your warm Christ-like attitude to those outside the catholic church. I’m assuming somewhere within your catholic tradition it states you should be sarcastic to those outside catholicism. Way to share the love man.

josiah
 
Scott Waddell:
It says repent and be baptized, not repent THEN be baptized. He is speaking to adults, so this is the normative order, you are a million miles away (not to mention 50,000 Authority Poker chips short) from establishing it as an absolute order.

The Acts passage in no way establishes it as a universal, no exceptions rule.

Superpope josiah has not made his case.

Scott
Why doesn’t the passage read be baptized and repent… Maybe b/c there seems to be a pattern here in ACTS, which just so happens to record what the early church practiced.

(Act 2:38) Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

(Act 2:41) Then those who gladly received his word were baptized. And the same day there were added about three thousand souls.

(Act 8:12) But when they believed Philip preaching the gospel, the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women (Act 8:13) Then Simon himself believed also, and being baptized, he continued with Philip. And seeing miracles and mighty works happening, he was amazed.
 
40.png
josiah:
Scott,

I love your warm Christ-like attitude to those outside the catholic church. I’m assuming somewhere within your catholic tradition it states you should be sarcastic to those outside catholicism. Way to share the love man.

josiah
Yes,
It is hard to believe that Catholics are humans too. Seems occasionally we see someone stoop to a level of biting sarcasm. But really, what did you expect. It is rather obvious that you did not come to this site with an open mind and to learn of Catholism. You seem to be bent on telling us time and time again that we, all billion of us, are wrong. Well, if we are, what is the harm in that? We believe and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. But, what if you are wrong? Course how pompous of me to even suggest that you might be. It looks to me that if we are wrong, we are still really close to Gods original plan, but if you are wrong, you are missing some pretty big steps that are necessary for your salvation. Boy, I hope you got it right.

By the way, I am sorry that you were offended by the sarcasm.
 
40.png
JackPaul:
Yes,
It is hard to believe that Catholics are humans too. Seems occasionally we see someone stoop to a level of biting sarcasm. But really, what did you expect. It is rather obvious that you did not come to this site with an open mind and to learn of Catholism. You seem to be bent on telling us time and time again that we, all billion of us, are wrong. Well, if we are, what is the harm in that? We believe and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. But, what if you are wrong? Course how pompous of me to even suggest that you might be. It looks to me that if we are wrong, we are still really close to Gods original plan, but if you are wrong, you are missing some pretty big steps that are necessary for your salvation. Boy, I hope you got it right.

By the way, I am sorry that you were offended by the sarcasm.
Contrary to what you might think, I’m here for open honest dialogue and not debate (which implies a winner and loser). I have never tried to degrade anyone here and always tried to be polite. I’m also here to get a better understanding of catholic teachings. I have enjoyed learning more about catholicism and being challenged about my own personal beliefs. I am not so ignorant to think that everything that I hold to is 100% correct. That is why I am here for open honest dialogue and to listen to others who believe differently than I do. Apologetics has always fascinated me. Thank you to all who have had discussions with me w/out wrapping your hands around my neck. This is an apologetics site, it’s an evironment designed for questioning and answering, so I’m sorry if I have offended anyone b/c of my questioning.

Peace and love,
Josiah
 
40.png
josiah:
Contrary to what you might think, I’m here for open honest dialogue …so I’m sorry if I have offended anyone b/c of my questioning. …Josiah
So, I asked a few questions and presented a few verses from your Bible.
You ignored them completely…Charity?
Where does my questioning stand with you?
See POSTS #5 & especially #6.

Nice try though.
 
40.png
TNT:
So, I asked a few questions and presented a few verses from your Bible.
You ignored them completely…Charity?
Where does my questioning stand with you?
See POSTS #5 & especially #6.

Nice try though.
Your question in Post #5 isn’t a question at all – you state an opinion about Hebrews, and ask for “proof” that it should be in the canon.

First we must find out who has the authority to establish the canon. The Church has that authority, and the Church included it in the canon.

Your position is like asking some one to “prove” that you should stop for a red light, and refusing to accept the authority of the legislature to make laws.

As for the Sabbath, Jesus Himself said man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man. As His Church spread into the Gentile world, where people – particularly lower class and slaves – didn’t have Saturday off, the Church chose to celebrate the Eucharist in the day they did have off – Sunday.
 
vern humphrey:
Your question in Post # 5 isn’t a question at all – #6 you state an opinion about Hebrews, and **ask ** for “proof” that it should be in the canon…
That’s not a question?? From Post 5 and 6:
Q: So, before I was able to read or understand Scripture, was I saved or not?
Q:If I have a retarded child not able to understand Scripture or even to read it, are they saved or not; Perfect or not?
Q: Why must there be 27 and not 25 or 28 books in your NT?

I was and still am addressing Josiah.

But you may address the question if you can show that (as Josiah insists) that tradition outside his bible is not needed for True Christainity.
In your post, you addressed tradtion outside the bible as an answer. By Josiah’s refusal toward ex-bible tradition, that answer is refuting (quite well) Josiah’s prot. theory. I believe that is why Josiah won’t address it.
By not addressing it, I must then suspect his sincerity in his most recent post above.
God Bless
 
40.png
TNT:
By not addressing it, I must then suspect his sincerity in his most recent post above.
God Bless
I’ve lost track of who is advancing what argument here. :-()
 
vern humphrey:
I’ve lost track of who is advancing what argument here. :-()
Not real complicated:
Ok, maybe it is:
  1. He has questions.
  2. We answer them.
  3. We have questions to him.
  4. He will not answer them.
  5. He then declares sincerity in DIALOGUE.
  6. I then question his sincerity as long as he will not address my questions.
    God Bless your entry into this thread. Stay tuned as we wait for Josiah’s answers from only within his bible.
 
I think the Superpope charge is reasonable (that is, someone who thinks they have authoritative interpretations of Scripture and are free to ignore other Scripture, tradition, etc.) but since some think that they can get debate milage out of complaining about it, I retract it.

Scott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top