Trying to get past this argument against infant baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erick_Ybarra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Erick_Ybarra

Guest
When Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born of water and spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God he also said that the Spirit is like the wind and that you cannot see it where it goes or where it is coming from but that you can only see the affects such as the wind blowing on the trees.

How should we respond to a protestant argument which says that infant baptism destroys this principle of the Spirit because we are declaring that the Spirit always comes from God through the Priest into every born infant whose parents are Christians.

In other words, Jesus seems to say that the movement of the spirit is spontaneous where it wants to go, but in the sacrament of infant baptism there is not spontaneity but 100% spirit infusion.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
When Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born of water and spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God he also said that the Spirit is like the wind and that you cannot see it where it goes or where it is coming from but that you can only see the affects such as the wind blowing on the trees.

How should we respond to a protestant argument which says that infant baptism destroys this principle of the Spirit because we are declaring that the Spirit always comes from God through the Priest into every born infant whose parents are Christians.

In other words, Jesus seems to say that the movement of the spirit is spontaneous where it wants to go, but in the sacrament of infant baptism there is not spontaneity but 100% spirit infusion.
Click to expand...
If the Holy Spirit is always “spontaneous” then what would be the point of Peter saying at Pentecost in the first part of Acts – be baptized all of you …and you will receive the Holy Spirit? And other like scenes?

Or Jesus deliberately “breathing” on the Apostles and saying --receive the Holy Spirit …

The Holy Spirit is active in many ways…and yes he is like the wind as Jesus refers …but he also is always at work in Baptism etc.

Tis like many things of the Theological nature – a “both and”.
 
The spirit is available to those who believe through thebsacrament of baptism. But the spirit isbwhat gave the person faith. This was spontaneous
 
I agree with Bookcat. Acts 2:38 speaks of receiving the Spirit after baptism. But also, it is illogical to say that there cannot be a certain receipt of the Spirit in a sacrament just because people receive the Spirit in other ways. Some Protestants have the mentality of “I received the Spirit, so I can’t receive the Spirit any ‘more’.” But you can receive the Spirit sacramentally, daily, in prayer, etc… They just reject that the Spirit can be received in a special way through a sacrament. And that is a contra-Biblical position.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
When Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born of water and spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God he also said that the Spirit is like the wind and that you cannot see it where it goes or where it is coming from but that you can only see the affects such as the wind blowing on the trees.

How should we respond to a protestant argument which says that infant baptism destroys this principle of the Spirit because we are declaring that the Spirit always comes from God through the Priest into every born infant whose parents are Christians.

In other words, Jesus seems to say that the movement of the spirit is spontaneous where it wants to go, but in the sacrament of infant baptism there is not spontaneity but 100% spirit infusion.
Click to expand...
First of all, there is nothing in the Bible that bans infant baptism at all. Whole households were baptized in the NT which would have included young children and infants. There is nothing at all that states infants and young children CANNOT be baptized. Likewise, Act records adults being baptized because the Church was starting out and it was large numbers of adults coming to Christ. The Anabaptist Protestants that promote this idea as Biblical have really nothing to point to and Acts accounts of adults coming in does not mean this is doctrine of the Church. Infant baptism has always been practiced from the beginning of Church history. Jesus did say “let the little children come to me” Likewise, circumcision practiced by Jews is done on infant boys. This is parallel example of infants coming into the community of faith. There is nothing in the Bible at all that states baptism is for adults only.
 
Well if you look at the household passages it it implicit that there were grown children. Read then again.

And acts 2:38 is still a promise to repentance and faith which are already gifts of the spirit.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Well if you look at the household passages it it implicit that there were grown children. Read then again.

And acts 2:38 is still a promise to repentance and faith which are already gifts of the spirit.
Click to expand...
It says whole household and don’t state the ages. Historical examples given in Acts does not mean that this is doctrine for all time. There is a good book “Fathers Know Best” by Jimmy Akin and it covers what was taught by the early Church and he does discuss infant baptism and it was practiced and taught from the beginning of Christian history. Only in the 1500 with the reformation did the idea ever develop that infant baptism is unbiblical. I would rather place my trust on what was done and believed from the start than what someone came up with 1500 years later.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
When Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born of water and spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God he also said that the Spirit is like the wind and that you cannot see it where it goes or where it is coming from but that you can only see the affects such as the wind blowing on the trees.

How should we respond to a protestant argument which says that infant baptism destroys this principle of the Spirit because we are declaring that the Spirit always comes from God through the Priest into every born infant whose parents are Christians.

In other words, Jesus seems to say that the movement of the spirit is spontaneous where it wants to go, but in the sacrament of infant baptism there is not spontaneity but 100% spirit infusion.
Click to expand...
Erick, I’m a bit at a loss about the confusion here… let’s compare the two statements:
  1. The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
  2. The coming of the Spirit is spontaneous, unassured, and unpredictable.
Those two statements are not at all the same… Jesus says we can’t SEE the Holy Spirit physically in baptism (where He comes from and where He goes to), that we can only see the fruits of baptism (grace) acting on the person. He does NOT say that the Spirit is unpredictable about bestowing grace upon those who are born again.
 
What’s wrong with infant baptism? I don’t see the harm in it. Children will at some point make a decision for themselves. But at least having been baptized at it as an infant it will give them some kind of measure a protection.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Well if you look at the household passages it it implicit that there were grown children. Read then again.

And acts 2:38 is still a promise to repentance and faith which are already gifts of the spirit.
Click to expand...
Aren’t you reading too much in that passage? where is the age of children stated there?

Fact is the jews always accostumed to bring their infant into their faith, they practice the circumcision very young. Are they waiting for them to grow and have understanding if they want or not accept God? Of course NOT, they teach their little ones to love and fear God.
Why would the Christians acts differently?
It’s a straw man’s argument.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
And acts 2:38 is still a promise to repentance and faith which are already gifts of the spirit.
Click to expand...
It is a “both and”

One can receive the Holy Spirit --or the activity of the Holy Spirit prior to baptism --but yes he comes at Baptism. Every valid baptism.
and be baptized…and you shall receive the Holy Spirit…

not and be baptized …and maybe …it may happen…that that the Holy Spirit will decide to come to you.
 
Makes sense.

Its just that in the section on the Philippians jailor says ‘‘and then Paul and Silas went and spoke the word of the lord to those in his household’’ it seem to imply they could listen
But it still is an all inclusive word

How should we understand Jesus teaching on the windness of the spirit
 
“Both”…“and”

It is both this…and that.

Jesus is both God and Man.

God is both “one” and “three” (persons).

The Holy Spirit is active in both the ways we expect and always is active in (like baptism) and in ways we do not expect etc.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Makes sense.

Its just that in the section on the Philippians jailor says ‘‘and then Paul and Silas went and spoke the word of the lord to those in his household’’ it seem to imply they could listen
But it still is an all inclusive word

How should we understand Jesus teaching on the windness of the spirit
Click to expand...
I am not sure why you are stuck on the “windiness” of the spirit. We understand scripture in light of the magisterium and authority of the Catholic Church which has been proven and tested over time. Following what the Catholic Church teaches prevents us from 'being blown about by every wind of doctrine". Every wind of doctrine is basically what is in Protestantism.
Like I said earlier, I would rather trust the Church on infant baptism which has been taught and practiced from the very beginning than what some group 1500 years later came up with in an inaccurate understanding of reading scripture. The choice is yours but if your are thinking about windiness, I would rather not be blown about by “every wind of doctrine” which will just get you into trouble, heresy and error. I can trust the magisterium of the Catholic Church which has been lead and protected by the Holy Spirit.
 
But what is odd is that Jesus speaks of the freedom and self-will and spontanaeity of the spirit with specific reference to baptism
 
robwar said:
I am not sure why you are stuck on the “windiness” of the spirit. We understand scripture in light of the magisterium and authority of the Catholic Church which has been proven and tested over time. Following what the Catholic Church teaches prevents us from 'being blown about by every wind of doctrine". Every wind of doctrine is basically what is in Protestantism.
Like I said earlier, I would rather trust the Church on infant baptism which has been taught and practiced from the very beginning than what some group 1500 years later came up with in an inaccurate understanding of reading scripture. The choice is yours but if your are thinking about windiness, I would rather not be blown about by “every wind of doctrine” which will just get you into trouble, heresy and error. I can trust the magisterium of the Catholic Church which has been lead and protected by the Holy Spirit./QUOTE

Anglicans believe in infant baptism.

And truly if all catholics from all time were alive today there would he much disagreement. Even the popes themselves would find something to quarrel about. The literature tells this. They would all have to find one pope to submit to.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top