The Case For Infant Baptism

[PinoyCatholic]

I will take it that you cannot.

Thank you anyway.

…

First let me ask you one thing.

How would you define a “nation”? Are children included in your definition of “nation”?

 

[PinoyCatholic]

Sorry about that. That was two questions, but relating to one thing. He he.

The questions remain though.

 

[Atemi]

First let me ask you one thing.

How would you define a “nation”? Are children included in your definition of “nation”?

Catholic NAB
Matt 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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”

A “nation” as far as the NT is concerned is an ethic group, community, or populace.

The questions really are:

How do you define a "disciple."

and…

Are unbelievers and pagans included in “nations”?

…

 

[Atemi]

First of all, the servant in question was undoubtedly an adult, not an infant.

this does not help your case at all.

Actually, it does immensely.

What you are basically saying here is that one adult can repent and have faith for another adult and thus they can be initially justified before God.

Actually you have incorrectly interpreted what I am saying, as you incorrectly interpret the Scriptures on Baptism excluding infants.

No.

That is what you are saying. You said:

“It seems that the faith of the one in authority is sufficient for Jesus to extend His Grace to those under the authority of him.”

You post this specifically in a thread about the sacrament of initial justification, the forgiveness of sin, and salvation.

**You are saying that an adult can repent for another adult and they can be saved. **

No, I’m not saying that, neither is Jesus.

You actually did by citing the Centurian’s servant as your evidence.

What Jesus is saying here is that those who are under the authority of another–y’know, like slaves and children and infants–will benefit from the faith and prayers of those over them, y’know, like parents.

Well, y’know, like, the Centurian’s servant was, like, not an infant.

So masters in the Aposolic era could repent for their slaves, whether they were believers or not?

No.

None of this is orthodox Christian doctrine.

PS - Christ did not heal the Centurian’s servant because the Centurian was in charge and gave Christ the “go ahead.” Christ healed and delivered any and everyone regardless of anyone elses positions over them.

This is not even within the pale of orthodox Christianity as a whole, nevermind that is contradicts RC doctrine.

actually, it is pretty clear that you don’t understand Christian Doctrine.

Ahhh. The personal attacks continue form the poster who says he is all about “respect.”

Thank you again.

Is it so impossible to stay on topic and not insult other posters? Try it.

…

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

I found this in my word file and apologize for not being able to cite where it came from. Hope it helps the discussion.

Acts 2:39 Peter answered: "You must reform and be baptized, each of you in the name of Jesus Christ, that your sins may be forgiven; then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. It was to
you and your children that the promise was made …

You just totally added to God’s word to fit your false teaching. That’s NOT what acts 2:39 says…here it is

(kjv)

Ac 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

 

[savedsinner]

ryanoneil;2683212:

I found this in my word file and apologize for not being able to cite where it came from. Hope it helps the discussion.

Acts 2:39 Peter answered: "You must reform and be baptized, each of you in the name of Jesus Christ, that your sins may be forgiven; then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. It was to
you and your children that the promise was made …

You just totally added to God’s word to fit your false teaching. That’s NOT what acts 2:39 says…here it is

(kjv)

Ac 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

No they are not adding to the word of God, they just listed two passages instead of one, Acts 38 and 39.

Acts 2:38-39 (KJV)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

But thank you for bringing that to our attention.
(boy you sure seem argumentative)

 

[PinoyCatholic]

Catholic NAB
Matt 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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”

A “nation” as far as the NT is concerned is an ethic group, community, or populace.

The questions really are:

How do you define a "disciple."

and…

Are unbelievers and pagans included in “nations”?

…

So you answered “an ethic group, community, or populace” for the meaning of “nation”. This most certainly includes children and infants, no? Defining what a disciple is and whether pagans are included in the definition, is a completely different topic altogether. Don’t evade the issue.

Christ called us to “teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (from the Douay-Rheims). One might argue that “teaching” starts the first moment we come into the world or slightly after, but definitely starting in infancy. Even if you ask if infants can be “disciples”, remember what Jesus said? “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not”. Apparently Jesus Himself said to allow the little children to come to Him. I’m not going to say no to Christ.

Those are direct commands from Christ Himself. Remember what you said? If I can produce a citation, you will obey?

Better start obeying Christ my friend.

 

[SFLCatholic]

Sorry, SFL.

Just jumping up and down and shouting that it is not possible your church could be wrong does not address what I posted.

I understand you are obligated to believe that, but that says nothing about the point I made.

…

Make a point first. You make emotional statements that not factually based.

 

[maurin]

Actually, it does immensely.

No.

That is what you are saying. You said:

“It seems that the faith of the one in authority is sufficient for Jesus to extend His Grace to those under the authority of him.”

You post this specifically in a thread about the sacrament of initial justification, the forgiveness of sin, and salvation.

You actually did by citing the Centurian’s servant as your evidence.

Well, y’know, like, the Centurian’s servant was, like, not an infant.

So masters in the Aposolic era could repent for their slaves, whether they were believers or not?

No.

None of this is orthodox Christian doctrine.

PS - Christ did not heal the Centurian’s servant because the Centurian was in charge and gave Christ the “go ahead.” Christ healed and delivered any and everyone regardless of anyone elses positions over them.

Ahhh. The personal attacks continue form the poster who says he is all about “respect.”

Thank you again.

Is it so impossible to stay on topic and not insult other posters? Try it.

…

Your idea of conversation seems to be that the best defense is a good offense.

Guess what? It isn’t.

ANd I must ask: why have you substituted my using of Grace with repentance? Nowhere have I entered ‘repentance.’ You change my words, and then respond to your changes.

Now, would you please respond to the points made instead of ranting? Let’s start with only the first point:

Point #1: Jesus Himself saved the Centurion’s Servant from death, not on the Centurion’s Servant’s faith, but on the faith of the Centurion. The Centurion pled his Servant’s cause to Jesus. We never meet the Servant in this story.

So why, in your opinion, does Jesus save the Servant from death on the faith of the Centurion?

 

[Pax]

OT-- Baptism prefigured
Ezk 36:25-28
I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Compare this to:
ACTS 2:37-39
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

Going statement for statement we see an unmistakable pattern and prefiguring in Ezekiel and it is clear that God will use water to cleanse us (forgive our sins), that he will change our hearts (and they were cut to the heart), and that he will put a new spirit within us(we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.)

The final statement in Ezekial is repeated in many places in both the OT and NT. God says, “you shall be my people.” This language is echoed in the passage in Acts where we are told that “the promise is to you and to your children…everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

Needless to say, God loves children just as He loves adults. Jesus chided the disciples for keeping the children, including infants, from him. We are the family of God. We are members of the household and so are our children. Faith is a gift. We receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism. Baptism is a gift that imparts the forgiveness of sin and brings us into the family of God.

Infant baptism has never been condemned and has always been practiced although there were people that did not wish to be baptised until they were on their death beds. These are the exceptions and they do not set the rule. The first argument ever to arise about infant baptism involved whether or not it should be done by the eigth day after birth. The timing was argued but not the practice. I would never deny a child baptism and I cannot imagine why anyone else would either.

 

[SFLCatholic]

Don’t evade the issue.

Its how Atemi operates. Read his many posting throughout the Catholic Forums.

He thinks he’s being smart by twisting everything around. If you study his postings, you will see he is rather confused. This is evident by the many contradictory remarks he makes which are all emotionally driven instead of factually based.

Sorry Atemi. Its how I see you.

 

[Atemi]

ANd I must ask: why have you substituted my using of Grace with repentance? Nowhere have I entered ‘repentance.’ You change my words, and then respond to your changes.

Because you specifically responded to this post that asked about repentance:

"No eight day old can “Repent, Rise, or Call on the name of the Lord”.

Repentence is one of the most important commands given to us from our Lord, without it there is no forgivness."

And what was your reply to this post in a thread that is about the case for infant baptism?

“It seems that the faith of the one in authority is sufficient for Jesus to extend His Grace to those under the authority of him.”

Playing like you did not mean this is relation to the repentance you specifically were addressing is silly.

Please.

Point #1: Jesus Himself saved the Centurion’s Servant from death, not on the Centurion’s Servant’s faith, but on the faith of the Centurion. The Centurion pled his Servant’s cause to Jesus. We never meet the Servant in this story.

So why, in your opinion, does Jesus save the Servant from death on the faith of the Centurion?

This thread is not about physical healing.

This is what the topic is: "The Case For Infant Baptism"

Either explain how the Centurion’s servant makes the case for infant baptism or you are way OT and I cannot follow.

…

 

[SFLCatholic]

Because you specifically responded to this post that asked about repentance:

"No eight day old can “Repent, Rise, or Call on the name of the Lord”.

Repentence is one of the most important commands given to us from our Lord, without it there is no forgivness."And what was your reply to this post in a thread that is about the case for infant baptism?

"It seems that the faith of the one in authority is sufficient for Jesus to extend His Grace to those under the authority of him."Playing like you did not mean this is relation to the repentance you specifically were addressing is silly.

Please.

This thread is not about physical healing.

This is what the topic is: "The Case For Infant Baptism"

Either explain how the Centurion’s servant makes the case for infant baptism or you are way OT and I cannot follow.

…

If this thread is about infant baptism, then why are you talking about repentence?

You are up to your old tricks again. Confusing the issue in an attempt to make yourself seem intellectual.

 

[ryanoneil]

xfrodobagginsx;2694040:

No they are not adding to the word of God, they just listed two passages instead of one, Acts 38 and 39.

Acts 2:38-39 (KJV)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

But thank you for bringing that to our attention.
(boy you sure seem argumentative)

Thanks to both of you!

 

[maurin]

Because you specifically responded to this post that asked about repentance:

"No eight day old can “Repent, Rise, or Call on the name of the Lord”.

Repentence is one of the most important commands given to us from our Lord, without it there is no forgivness."

And what was your reply to this post in a thread that is about the case for infant baptism?

“It seems that the faith of the one in authority is sufficient for Jesus to extend His Grace to those under the authority of him.”

Playing like you did not mean this is relation to the repentance you specifically were addressing is silly.

Please.

This thread is not about physical healing.

This is what the topic is: "The Case For Infant Baptism"

Either explain how the Centurion’s servant makes the case for infant baptism or you are way OT and I cannot follow.

…

No, Atemi. I did not respond to a post about repentance. That is you putting motivations behind my post–we call that assuming, and assuming incorrectly.

I posted 1 Scripture of many which shows why we believe, along with 2000 years of Christians, in Infant Baptism.

Quid pro quo, Atemi. You answer my question, and I’ll answer yours.

 

[maurin]

ANd I must ask: why have you substituted my using of Grace with repentance? Nowhere have I entered ‘repentance.’ You change my words, and then respond to your changes.

Now, would you please respond to the points made instead of ranting? Let’s start with only the first point:

***Point #1: Jesus Himself saved the Centurion’s Servant from death, not on the Centurion’s Servant’s faith, but on the faith of the Centurion. The Centurion pled his Servant’s cause to Jesus. We never meet the Servant in this story.

So why, in your opinion, does Jesus save the Servant from death on the faith of the Centurion***?

This is my question, Atemi, in bold, above.

 

[Atemi]

No, Atemi. I did not respond to a post about repentance. That is you putting motivations behind my post–we call that assuming, and assuming incorrectly.

We all can go back and see what you quoted and your specific reply to that quote.

Here it is: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2692974&postcount=1

Please.

I posted 1 Scripture of many which shows why we believe, along with 2000 years of Christians, in Infant Baptism.

Again, you refuse to explain how the Centurion’s servant (non infant) makes the case for infant baptism.

It is your own defense, so why you would not elaborate is puzzling.

…

 

[Atemi]

If this thread is about infant baptism, then why are you talking about repentence?

Take better care and actually read the thread before responding so caustically.

It was NonDenom who mentioned repentance and mausin who responded with the incident with the Centurion’s servant as making a case for infant baptism.

…

 

[Atemi]

This is my question, Atemi, in bold, above.

Point #1: Jesus Himself saved the Centurion’s Servant from death, not on the Centurion’s Servant’s faith, but on the faith of the Centurion. The Centurion pled his Servant’s cause to Jesus. We never meet the Servant in this story.

So why, in your opinion, does Jesus save the Servant from death on the faith of the Centurion?

For the same reason He could heal my pet, my friends, or my parents if I asked in faith as well.

Now you only need to explain how this makes the case for infant baptism.

…

 

[SFLCatholic]

Take better care and actually read the thread before responding so caustically.

It was NonDenom who mentioned repentance and mausin who responded with the incident with the Centurion’s servant as making a case for infant baptism.

…

Caustic response? Hardly.

More like a request for an explanation to your contradictions.

Why do you think people are out to get you?