S
SFLCatholic
Guest
oh brother…
- Status
A
Atemi
Guest
Useless for infant baptism?
Very much so. Totally useless, as it has nothing to do with the Centurion’s authority, infants, or baptism!
LOL.
No. Please let’s not slip into nonsense.
Jesus healed the man of his illness because of the faith of the intercessor. This is all through the Gospels.
What is not all through the Gospels is infants being baptised or people repenting for other people. Actually, those are both missing from the entirety of the Scriptures and in the earliest church practice.
…
S
SFLCatholic
Guest
That’s the pot calling the kettle black…
H
heisenburg
Guest
Actually,
the event with the centurion is a great defense for infant baptism for a completely different reason.
It wasn’t the Faith of the servant that healed him, it was the faith of the servants master…
This is precisely the logic behind infant baptism
It isn’t the faith of the infant that saves him, it is the faith of his parents.
The servant (infant) is unable to make the profession of faith on his own, however, the centurion (parents) make the profession and thus saves the servant (infant)
All that changes is the nouns, the logic is exactly the same
In Christ
the event with the centurion is a great defense for infant baptism for a completely different reason.
It wasn’t the Faith of the servant that healed him, it was the faith of the servants master…
This is precisely the logic behind infant baptism
It isn’t the faith of the infant that saves him, it is the faith of his parents.
The servant (infant) is unable to make the profession of faith on his own, however, the centurion (parents) make the profession and thus saves the servant (infant)
All that changes is the nouns, the logic is exactly the same
In Christ
S
SFLCatholic
Guest
Totally useless? Then why do you reference it yourself in support of your argument?
S
SFLCatholic
Guest
This is an aside, but thanks for clearing something up for me.
It has always been my understanding that Protestants did not believe in the use of intercessors of any kind because they can appeal to Jesus directly. And that having an intercessor runs the risk of idolatry.
I see now from your post, thats not the case.
M
maurin
Guest
Yeah!!! makin’ the case AGAIN for infant Baptism!!! Good for you, Atemi.
A
Atemi
Guest
Actually, not so much.
What that makes a case for is the power of intercession and faith in the healing and deliverance of others besides ourselves.
The Centurion could not have repented for his servant no matter how much faith he had. This eludes only those who refuse to see.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
Well we must stick with what was given us in the Word, not make up other things we would like to apply it to outside of that witness.
Yes, of course.
But one, that had nothing to do with the Centurion’s authority over the servant as erroneously postulated earlier.
And two, there is no way at all the Centurion could have repented and turned to God FOR his servant…no matter how faith filled he was and no matter how hard he tried.
Nowhere throughout the entirety of the Word of God will you find any instructions to repent for other people through intercession…or any examples thereof.
This is an empty well that never had water to begin with.
Not precise at all. Very far off.
The Centurion could seek the healing of another all day long, but he could have never repented for them.
Luk 13:5 “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”
Notice who is missing from that equation.
Actually, the faith, or lack of faith, has absolutely no bearing on the salvific nature of water baptism.
You should know that.
To mention the faith of a parent in saving an infant is highly erroneous, even in Roman Catholic thought and doctrine.
Wrong.
The Centurion made no profession of faith FOR the servant or in his stead.
The Centurion’s faith was all his own and he spoke for himself.
…
H
heisenburg
Guest
With respect…
You missed the point…
The faith of one effects the state of another…
this is the same with infant baptism.
The faith of the centurion effected the servant
The faith of a Jewish parent effects the state of the infant during circumcision
The faith of a Christ parent effects the state of the infant child in baptism.
The same logic in each place…
However, your logic seems to be because it is not stated explicitly, it is false. This unfortunately creates some very serious problems when carried to its final, logical conclusion
If you espouse an explicit only gospel, then you create the problem of 90% of all worship in every denom, sect, individual is invalid.
There is no explicit mention of trinity, HOW to baptize, what tor read, how to read, how worship service should be done… why Wed Services…
The list goes on and on…
Anyone that sticks to explicit only not only creates extreme difficulty in all aspects of worship, they all but invalidate Christianity as a whole.
Any ‘logic’ you apply to one aspect of the bible, must be applied to the WHOLE bible.
Explicit only is a dangerous way to believe as it has NEVER been taught, except when it is convenient to the individual
In Christ
You missed the point…
The faith of one effects the state of another…
this is the same with infant baptism.
The faith of the centurion effected the servant
The faith of a Jewish parent effects the state of the infant during circumcision
The faith of a Christ parent effects the state of the infant child in baptism.
The same logic in each place…
However, your logic seems to be because it is not stated explicitly, it is false. This unfortunately creates some very serious problems when carried to its final, logical conclusion
If you espouse an explicit only gospel, then you create the problem of 90% of all worship in every denom, sect, individual is invalid.
There is no explicit mention of trinity, HOW to baptize, what tor read, how to read, how worship service should be done… why Wed Services…
The list goes on and on…
Anyone that sticks to explicit only not only creates extreme difficulty in all aspects of worship, they all but invalidate Christianity as a whole.
Any ‘logic’ you apply to one aspect of the bible, must be applied to the WHOLE bible.
Explicit only is a dangerous way to believe as it has NEVER been taught, except when it is convenient to the individual
In Christ
S
SFLCatholic
Guest
Then we should be obeying Mat 16:18 and the authority of the Pope. Because the Scriptures very clearly say that Jesus built His church upon Peter, with Jesus giving Peter the keys to the Kingodm and saying that anything he shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven.
This is the authority of the Church and infant baptism
S
savedsinner
Guest
Let’s go back and see what Scripture does say.
Infant Baptism
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant -
Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.
Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.
Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.
Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.”
Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.
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.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.
Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a “believer’s baptism” requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).
S
savedsinner
Guest
**Acts 16:33 **- Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.
Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls.
Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.
1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household (“oikos”) of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.
Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.
Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.
2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith.
Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. This is another example of healing based on another’s faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.
Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith.
1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.
Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.
Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls.
Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.
1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household (“oikos”) of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.
Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.
Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.
2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith.
Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. This is another example of healing based on another’s faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.
Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith.
1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.
Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Why do some Catholics worry to death about an infant receiving Baptism as soon as possible after being born but don’t even worry at all about an adult convert to the Catholic faith waiting until the next Easter Vigil to be Baptized?
S
savedsinner
Guest
Maybe because of the baptism of desire, when they are converting to the Catholic faith, that shows a desire for the baptism.
A
Atemi
Guest
With respect, you unfortunately did, my friend.
In the witness called, it is the healing of another.
Actually it is not, whether in RC doctrine or Christian doctrine anywhere.
Yes. It got his servant healed, not initially justified or baptised.
There was not change of state in the circumcision of little boys.
Circumcision of little boys was not salvific. Come on.
Again, you stand corrected here.
This is against the doctrine of the RCC. It is not the faith of parents that is salvific at all, but the sacrament itself.
Do you not understand how many babies are baptised every year with absolutely no faith present in their parents?
Were they not washed in the sacrament? Is the sacrament thus invalidated.
No.
You argue against the doctrine of the Catholic Church in order to promote the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
That is totally self defeating and shows the bankrupty in this whole apologetic so many are erroneously pursuing in this thread.
Unlike in the case of the Centurion and his servant, the faith of the parents is functionally irrelevant as to the salvific nature and validity of water baptism.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
Wow.
Thanks for all that Scripture.
And you would think in all of that we would find somewhere someone either baptised an infant or taught to do so (considering how important the RCC today says it is).
Yet we have thousands of recorded baptisms yet not one was said to be a baby.
The significance of this cannot be overstated. The Holy Spirit did not make a clerical mistake in purposely not recording that for a witness.
…
Thanks for all that Scripture.
And you would think in all of that we would find somewhere someone either baptised an infant or taught to do so (considering how important the RCC today says it is).
Yet we have thousands of recorded baptisms yet not one was said to be a baby.
The significance of this cannot be overstated. The Holy Spirit did not make a clerical mistake in purposely not recording that for a witness.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
Considering that they must be regenerate and in a state of grace BEFORE they die, that is a great risk considering that new believers were baptised immediately in the Scriptural record.
Jerry makes a very good point: race for babies (innocents) but take your time with adults (sinners). That is internally inconsistent.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
Yes, as it also includes ALL non-believers as well.
No.
That IS the issue.
We are not commanded to baptise the nations, but to baptise the disciples we’ve made of all the nations.
The difference there is pivotal.
If we were commanded to baptise the nations, that would include all those that never chose, or will ever choose, Jesus Christ.
The nations means EVERYONE.
We are not called to indiscernibly baptise everyone. This is fundamental Christian understanding.
And so we are not talking with "ye"s here in 2007, here is a Catholic translation that is more up to date:
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”
We are not called to baptize all the nations but we are called to baptise His disciples.
No.
A disciple is one under self discipline.
Infants are not under self discipline.
And when they choose to come to Him, no one forbids them.
My pastor was baptised at five. Children can understand at an early age. Infants understand nothing.
In case you did not notice, Christ was specifically NOT talking about water baptizing babies in that passage. You have cited a passage that specifically does not even teach what you cite it for.
How is it that all those little children were coming to Christ without them all being water baptised first?
Yet you apply a standard to todays children that even Christ Himself never applied with His own teaching you cite word for word.
Wow.
LOL.
You first.
…
F
fellowChristian
Guest
The Old Covenant included children.Why do you believe the New Covenant doesn’t?
**Exodus 12:24-28 **
**The Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died. **
**Joshua 5:2-7 **
God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.
**From the time of Christ (33ad) all the way until now (2007ad) the Catholic Church (the Original Church of Christ) has always included children. **
“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” **Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140). **
“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”** Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4** **(A.D. 180). **
“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” **Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215). **
“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” **Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233). **
“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). **
“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” **Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244). **
“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). **
Notice the dates. The names. These are the Early Church Fathers. Some were educated by the Apostles themselves. These were the bishops who carried on the work of the Apostles. The denominations that split from the Catholic Church and “Protested” did not arise until 1517! So from the time of Moses until 1517 children were included in the Covenants between God and His people.It is not until after the “sifting” of the denominations do we start seeing children being excluded from these Covenants that God made with us. And only after 1517 in denominations created by men. Show me Scripture that says children should NOT be baptized.
**1 Corinthians 7:14 **
14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
**Exodus 12:24-28 **
**The Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died. **
**Joshua 5:2-7 **
God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.
**From the time of Christ (33ad) all the way until now (2007ad) the Catholic Church (the Original Church of Christ) has always included children. **
“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” **Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140). **
“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”** Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4** **(A.D. 180). **
“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” **Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215). **
“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” **Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233). **
“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). **
“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” **Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244). **
“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). **
Notice the dates. The names. These are the Early Church Fathers. Some were educated by the Apostles themselves. These were the bishops who carried on the work of the Apostles. The denominations that split from the Catholic Church and “Protested” did not arise until 1517! So from the time of Moses until 1517 children were included in the Covenants between God and His people.It is not until after the “sifting” of the denominations do we start seeing children being excluded from these Covenants that God made with us. And only after 1517 in denominations created by men. Show me Scripture that says children should NOT be baptized.
**1 Corinthians 7:14 **
14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
- Status