So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[Nicea325]

All throughout Scripture baptism is connected to repentance and faith. Scriptural baptism is always accompanied by repentance and faith. So, yes, the New Testament makes the ability to repent and have faith crucial to baptism.

By the same token, there is no verse that reads, ‘You shall not baptize children; you may only baptize those who profess faith in Jesus Christ’—there is no explicit verse forbidding the baptism of children. However,what is missing is overwhelming evidence to support ‘believer’s baptism’ to the exclusion of infant baptism.

It is based on what Scripture says about baptism, that repentance and faith are crucial elements to it. It is based on the fact that no where is infant baptism mentioned, and the fact that while many Christians claim “household” refers to infant baptism that is not conclusive one way or another.

Are you sure without a shred of doubt about the term household? Scripture relentlessly speaks of God as dealing with households by virtue of his dealing with the head of that household. This is true for the Old Testament as well as the New.

Genesis 7:1 "Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.” (Note in this instance that the word “you” is singular, referring to Noah only. Yet, by virtue of Noah’s righteousness, his whole family is taken into the ark. Peter compares this event to Baptism in 1 Peter 3:20,21)

And just as significant are those passages that mention the household but explicitly exclude children:

Genesis 50:7-8 “So Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, as well as all the house of Joseph, his brothers, and his father’s house. Only their little ones, their flocks, and their herds they left in the land of Goshen.”

1 Samuel 1:21,22 “Now the man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, ‘Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him, that he may appear before the LORD and remain there forever.’”

The exceptions prove the rule. In both of the above cases, when the biblical writer mentions the entire household, he feels the need to point out in this case that the children are not included. He would not point this out unless the term “house” presumed otherwise.

It’s not a bad comparison. You’re making a comparison about baptism. I’m making a comparison about the way “household” applies to infants.

Yes…it was a bad comparison. Sorry, but care to answer? Would you deny an infant or young child a bath because he or she is not ready to believe what it does for us? So once they understand and believe the purpose of baths, you give him or her a bath?

No. I believe people should not be baptized until, according to Scripture, they repent and have faith.

No? But why? Why not deny a child a bath…does a 8 month old know what it is the purpose?

And nowhere in Scripture is it stated that infants were baptized. Everything in Scripture points to believer’s baptism. Interpreting “household” to mean infants were baptized is not a strong enough basis on which to ignore those points.

Okay, then with what certitude do you have they NEVER were at any point in time during the NT church or post-Apostolic times? What conclusive evidence do you hold which absolutely makes your position a confirmed fact?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
As for Tertullian? Tertullian was not Protestant

And??? Does someone have to be Protestant to be right? Why didn’t you just tell me that earlier.

There is no and! Fact of the matter is that Protestants always try to use such a tactic. Trying to present some sort of smoking gun that the church father was somehow NOT Catholic. Tertullian was one man and not the voice of the entire church. No different than Jerome who submitted his will to the church,unlike reformers who carried on with their own agendas.

 

[benhur]

What you are proposing, it seems, regarding Cornelius, is that he was regenerated BEFORE he actually heard the gospel

I am astonished at this claim, benhur.

That means that there are a whole bunch of Muslims, Zoroastors, Buddhists, etc who are regenerated without ever hearing a word of the gospel according to you.

Why do you go so far ? The most obvious thing to get is that I propose he was regenerated before baptism or is that not so astonishing ?

 

[benhur]

I am curious. Would you accept this kind of thinking from your daughter*, if one substituted “marriage” for “baptism”?

That is, if she said she didn’t like confining and putting her relationship to her boyfriend in a box, and that there was a “wind of new life” without acceding to a “rite” of marriage?

She just wants to live with her boyfriend, as if they were married, without the “rite” of marriage.

Would you be ok with that?

• (let’s just say you have a daughter who’s of marrying age)

Not apples to oranges. I did not say do away with the rite. Do you think they are not in love or committed or brought together by God only after they tied the knot ? Does the ceremony make all that happen or do we have a ceremony because those things are already believed, not making the deal but sealing it ? Indeed the ceremony is a must because they already are committed, and in love, and paired by the Lord.

 

[benhur]

There is no and! Fact of the matter is that Protestants always try to use such a tactic. Trying to present some sort of smoking gun that the church father was somehow NOT Catholic. Tertullian was one man and not the voice of the entire church. No different than Jerome who submitted his will to the church,unlike reformers who carried on with their own agendas.

If I may butt in, then we also shouldn’t say all differing/opposed/protesting thoughts started in 1500 A.D.

 

[PRmerger]

Why do you go so far ? The most obvious thing to get is that I propose he was regenerated before baptism or is that not so astonishing ?

Because you are saying he was regenerated BEFORE he heard the gospel.

How is that possible?

 

[PRmerger]

Not apples to oranges. I did not say do away with the rite. Do you think they are not in love or committed or brought together by God only after they tied the knot ? Does the ceremony make all that happen or do we have a ceremony because those things are already believed, not making the deal but sealing it ? Indeed the ceremony is a must because they already are committed, and in love, and paired by the Lord.

Then you are not opposed to your daughter living together with her man?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, Pope Stephen in 3rd century said baptism was for washing but not for receiving the Spirit/regeneration of the spirit.

Source for this, please?

 

[Porknpie]

It is based on the fact that no where is infant baptism mentioned, and the fact that while many Christians claim “household” refers to infant baptism that is not conclusive one way or another.

Itwin, if an infant is not a member of a household, then what are they members of? And nowhere in scripture does it say not to baptize infants. But Catholics are not sola Scriptura which is your underlying problem here…The Church has always believed in infant baptism. One can read what the early Church thought way before there was a bible. The bible needs to be read in light of the Church and faith that produced it.

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

St Cyprian too below. The debate was whether to baptize infants on the day of birth, the second day of life or the 8th day in keeping with circumcision.

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

**

Source for this, please?

Interested in this answer too. This is the second time I’ve read this comment or close to it without any substantiation



PnP

 

[PRmerger]

All I’m saying is that it’s a stretch to think that the household argument is some kind of smoking gun.

I don’t think anyone ought to be arguing that the “household argument” is “some kind of smoking gun.”

We Catholics rarely argue from Scripture that way.

Rather, the “household argument” is only one of a multitude of arguments we present for infant baptism.

We ought never argue Sola Household Argument.

Just as Pascal’s wager is only one of a multitude of arguments for God’s existence. One ought not use* Sola Pascal’s Wager* to argue for belief in God. It either is the straw that tips a wavering agnostic in the direction of believing…or it is the catalyst that causes the Seeker to look at other arguments for God’s existence.

Similarly, the Household Argument is either the straw that tips a wavering Adult Only Baptism advocate in the direction of accepting infant baptism…or it is the catalyst that causes the Seeker to look at other arguments for infant baptism.

 

[ltwin]

Thank you for the link.
I see that you did talk about 1 Peter 3:21 in post #14, but you did not answer my question there.

What type of baptism is Peter talking about again, if not water baptism? And how is this baptism that you think he’s referencing done in contrast to water, which cleans dirt from the body?

Baptism into the body of Christ, which occurs when we have faith and repent of our sins, appealing to God for a clean conscience. It is “the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). Regeneration/new birth accomplishes the washing, and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the renewal.

In Titus 3:5, “the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” are parallel statements. The Holy Spirit does not need to be renewed, but rather the Holy Spirit renews us. Likewise, regeneration is what washes us from the filth of our sinful lives.

 

[ltwin]

Itwin, if an infant is not a member of a household, then what are they members of?

Let me be clear. I’m not arguing that infants are not members of a household. I’m arguing that when Scripture says households were baptized–given what Scripture says about baptism–that only those with faith who repented first were baptized. That’s my argument.

My point about “households” is that if baptism is always believers baptism, then it is perfectly logical to conclude that infants aren’t included since they aren’t candidates for baptism.

But Catholics are not sola Scriptura which is your underlying problem here…

Yes, this is always what it comes down to.

 

[ltwin]

Are you sure without a shred of doubt about the term household? Scripture relentlessly speaks of God as dealing with households by virtue of his dealing with the head of that household. This is true for the Old Testament as well as the New.

Genesis 7:1 "Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.” (Note in this instance that the word “you” is singular, referring to Noah only. Yet, by virtue of Noah’s righteousness, his whole family is taken into the ark. Peter compares this event to Baptism in 1 Peter 3:20,21)

Yes, I don’t have a problem with this. See here.

And just as significant are those passages that mention the household but explicitly exclude children:

Genesis 50:7-8 “So Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, as well as all the house of Joseph, his brothers, and his father’s house. Only their little ones, their flocks, and their herds they left in the land of Goshen.”

1 Samuel 1:21,22 “Now the man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, ‘Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him, that he may appear before the LORD and remain there forever.’”

The exceptions prove the rule. In both of the above cases, when the biblical writer mentions the entire household, he feels the need to point out in this case that the children are not included. He would not point this out unless the term “house” presumed otherwise.

The Genesis passage is in reference to long term travel. The fact that children and flocks were left behind is an important factual detail. In 1 Samuel, Hannah not going is important to note because she made a vow to return Samuel to Shiloh to live there.

If these were the exceptions that proved the rule, then it would require us to say that the infants in the jailer’s household rejoiced that he had believed in God (Acts 16:34). We would be required to read 1 Corinthians 16:15 as saying that Stephanas’ household (including infants and small children) devoted themselves to the service of the saints.

Yes…it was a bad comparison. Sorry, but care to answer? Would you deny an infant or young child a bath because he or she is not ready to believe what it does for us? So once they understand and believe the purpose of baths, you give him or her a bath?

Of course, if a child is dirty I would not deny them a bath. The child does not need to understand why they are getting a bath because I am able to ensure that they are washed clean. I know that they need to be washed, and I am able to wash them.

Of course, if baptism was like removing dirt from the body, then I would see every reason for baptizing young children. But baptism does not remove dirt from the body. It is an appeal/pledge toward God for a clean conscience. I can try to make that appeal on behalf of the child while they are young, but, ultimately, whether baptized or not, that child will have to make their own appeal to God, and I will not be able to do it for them.

No? But why? Why not deny a child a bath…does a 8 month old know what it is the purpose?

We don’t agree on the meaning of baptism. If the Catholic Church is right and baptism automatically removes the stain of original sin like a real bath removed dirt from the body, then I would see your point. However, we don’t agree on the meaning of baptism.

I believe that baptism is an outward symbol, a response to, and a confirmation of an inward work already done. Using this definition of baptism, your analogy breaks down because baptism only makes sense once you have experienced the new birth. Furthermore, it takes away the opportunity for the child, when he is mature enough, to meaningfully experience all the blessing, joy, and strengthening that come with baptism.

Okay, then with what certitude do you have they NEVER were at any point in time during the NT church or post-Apostolic times? What conclusive evidence do you hold which absolutely makes your position a confirmed fact?

I base my beliefs on what is in Scripture. Infant baptism is not mentioned in Scripture. Do I oppose parents who choose to have their infants baptized? No. I don’t feel that Scripture requires it, but it certainly can’t hurt. I do believe that people who were baptized as infants miss out because they aren’t old enough to remember their baptism, and I think it would be a good thing for them to be baptized when they were more mature. This wouldn’t need to be a renunciation of the infant baptism, but rather it can be seen as honoring their parents’ intentions.

There is no and! Fact of the matter is that Protestants always try to use such a tactic. Trying to present some sort of smoking gun that the church father was somehow NOT Catholic. Tertullian was one man and not the voice of the entire church. No different than Jerome who submitted his will to the church,unlike reformers who carried on with their own agendas.

I never said Tertullian wasn’t a Catholic; though, I think no one disputes the fact that he joined the Montanists, who were considered heretics.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, I don’t have a problem with this. See here.

I base my beliefs on what is in Scripture. Infant baptism is not mentioned in Scripture. Do I oppose parents who choose to have their infants baptized? No. I don’t feel that Scripture requires it, but it certainly can’t hurt. I do believe that people who were baptized as infants miss out because they aren’t old enough to remember their baptism, and I think it would be a good thing for them to be baptized when they were more mature. This wouldn’t need to be a renunciation of the infant baptism, but rather it can be seen as honoring their parents’ intentions.

Okay,but I noticed you left this out:

*By the same token, there is no verse that reads, ‘You shall not baptize children; you may only baptize those who profess faith in Jesus Christ’—there is no explicit verse forbidding the baptism of children. However,**what is missing is overwhelming evidence to support ‘believer’s baptism’ to the exclusion of infant baptism. ***

You base your belief what is in Scripture? Okay then, where does Scripture explicitly state your position is the ONLY acceptable method?

 

[ltwin]

You base your belief what is in Scripture? Okay then, where does Scripture explicitly state your position is the ONLY acceptable method?

Scripture has nothing to say about infant baptism. It has a lot to say about baptism, which overwhelmingly stresses the necessity of repentance and faith. Therefore, infant baptism is not really baptism. Indeed, infant baptism is baptism without repentance and without faith on the part of the person being baptized, which completely strips it of any biblical meaning.

While Scripture does not forbid infant baptism, it describes baptism in terms that make infant baptism meaningless as it relates to the infant being baptized. Infant baptism says more about the parents than it does the child.

 

[dronald]

I really do think anyone here should read all of Ezekiel 18.
1 The word of the LORD came to me:

2 "What do you { The Hebrew for b you b is plural } mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel…
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

 

[dronald]

I really do think anyone here should read all of Ezekiel 18.
1 The word of the LORD came to me:

2 "What do you { The Hebrew for b you b is plural } mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel…
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

God also quotes this saying through Jeremiah before speaking of Jesus and the new covenant which is found in Hebrews:

Jeremiah 31:29 In those days they shall no longer say: "'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. ’

30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD, ’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. "

35 Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar – the LORD of hosts is his name:

36 "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever. "

37 Thus says the LORD: "If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the LORD. "

38 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when the city shall be rebuilt for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate.

39 And the measuring line shall go out farther, straight to the hill Gareb, and shall then turn to Goah.

40 The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the LORD. It shall not be uprooted or overthrown anymore forever. "

 

[Nicea325]

Scripture has nothing to say about infant baptism. It has a lot to say about baptism, which overwhelmingly stresses the necessity of repentance and faith. Therefore, infant baptism is not really baptism. Indeed, infant baptism is baptism without repentance and without faith on the part of the person being baptized, which completely strips it of any biblical meaning.

While Scripture does not forbid infant baptism, it describes baptism in terms that make infant baptism meaningless as it relates to the infant being baptized. Infant baptism says more about the parents than it does the child.

You are dodging me.One more time, why do ignore this:

By the same token, there is no verse that reads, ‘You shall not baptize children; you may only baptize those who profess faith in Jesus Christ’—there is no explicit verse forbidding the baptism of children. However,**what is missing is overwhelming evidence to support ‘believer’s baptism’ to the exclusion of infant baptism. **

Were does Scripture explicitly state your position is the ONLY acceptable method?

 

[Nicea325]

You are dodging me.One more time, why do you ignore this:

By the same token, there is no verse that reads, ‘You shall not baptize children; you may only baptize those who profess faith in Jesus Christ’—there is no explicit verse forbidding the baptism of children. However,**what is missing is overwhelming evidence to support ‘believer’s baptism’ to the exclusion of infant baptism. **

Were does Scripture explicitly state your position is the ONLY acceptable method?

 

[ltwin]

You are dodging me.One more time, why do ignore this:

By the same token, there is no verse that reads, ‘You shall not baptize children; you may only baptize those who profess faith in Jesus Christ’—there is no explicit verse forbidding the baptism of children. However,**what is missing is overwhelming evidence to support ‘believer’s baptism’ to the exclusion of infant baptism. **

Were does Scripture explicitly state your position is the ONLY acceptable method?

I haven’t dodged you. I answered your question, and then explained why believers baptism is important and why infant baptism falls short of what is described in Scripture.

You want me to agree that there is no Scripture that forbids infant baptism. I acknowledged that. But that does not mean that infant baptism is what is intended in Scripture. We have to look at how baptism is described in the New Testament. It’s always accompanied by faith and repentance.

We’re never told not to baptize infants in Scripture. But we’re also never told that baptism can be separate from faith and repentance either. We are told the opposite. There must be faith and repentance.