Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[Richard_Kastner]

Sure its simple. Jesus said to Peter on this rock I will build MY Church.

Here is the crux of the problem. And I don’t think it is so much a misunderstanding as a twisting of what Jesus is saying.
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Matt.16:18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

These are the vs. that the CC bases it’s claim of apostolic succession and Peter being the first pope. But actually we need to go back to v. 13-18

Matt16:13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This dialogue between Peter the rest of the apostles, and Jesus begins with Jesus asking who do men say that** I am**? After He gets that answer He asks. Who do you say** I am**? Peter as spokesman for the group says “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Now the CC would have us believe that Jesus after He had just asked two questions about who He was now changes His focus to Peter. This is not the case. **16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. ** This is now and will always remain the rock upon which Jesus has founded His church.

Luke6:47Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

1 Corinthians 10:4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Peter has a direct link to the Pope.

No he doesn’t.

The Pope can be traced back to Peter.

No he can’t

What part do you deny that Jesus asked Peter to start the Church?

Yes.

Or History that proved direct succession?

I don’t deny history. Altho it is written by men and is flawed. But your history must eventually come back to these vs. in Matt. and as I have shown the CC’s view on this is flawed.

The Pope is a direct link to Peter.

No he isn’t.

Check out history. Don’t take our word for it. Are you saying History is lying also?

Are you saying all the history books are without flaws? That would make them infallible wouldn’t it? Maybe you think they all were written by popes?

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Brian what exactly do you reject Catholic teaching on infant baptism or Christ’s words. IT is exactly the same.

John 3:5 No one enters heaven without baptism of water and the spirit.

I have read on this thread, this is what I think, and I don’t think etc. Lets go by the words of God for a change and listen to him. How about that

So lets take the words of St Paul for a change. Acts 22:16 So WHY DELAY Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away calling upon his name.

Do you not realize that when a Child is Baptised the Priest says I Baptise you in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is giving that CHild to CHrist by calling on his name.

Do you not realize that we are all born into original sin that is given to us by Adam and Eve. Do you reject the O.T or what. Do you not know what Baptism is? Baptism is what saved us through bath of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5)

Col 3:12 burned with him in baptism raised with him in faith.

Col. 2:13 You wre dead in transgressions he brought you to life.

Please quit rejecting the words of CHrist. We are ALL brought into this world by original sin. So beings that we are all brought into this world one way as babies, how in the world can you reject original sin? I cannot understand your reasoning.

Your accusation that I am rejecting the words of Christ is careless and ignorant. Do you honestly believe that your interpretation of Christ’s words is the only true one? If you don’t understand my reasoning then don’t accuse me of rejecting Christ’s words.

Two questions:

1. Show me where Jesus or the apostle taught that we will be judged for Adam’s sin?
2. Why does Revelation 20 say the unsaved will be judged according to their works if they are already guilty of Adam’s sin? Why judge them of their works if they are already guilty?

 

[avflf]

How odd that you would compare a decree from a Roman ruler with a command from Jesus. And how odd that you cannot see the difference between a Roman Ruler speaking about “all” as he knows it and Jesus speaking about “all” as HE knows it.

We were discussing what the Bible says, being the Word of God and all inspired and your insistence that “all” means all in the Scriptures. I pointed out that “all” in Luke 2:1 did not mean “all the World” but most probably referred to the Roman world. But Caesar Augustus did not write this passage in Luke’s book. Luke did and he was inspired also. So, I come back to the point that one needs context to discern what was meant.

 

[SirThomasMore]

We were discussing what the Bible says, being the Word of God and all inspired and your insistence that “all” means all in the Scriptures. I pointed out that “all” in Luke 2:1 did not mean “all the World” but most probably referred to the Roman world. But Caesar Augustus did not write this passage in Luke’s book. Luke did and he was inspired also. So, I come back to the point that one needs context to discern what was meant.

All due respect, that is not what you did. You took the word “all” as was used in a decree from a Roman ruler, talking about the world as Rome knew it, and comapred to “all” as used by Christ talking about the world and people and HE knew it. Then you tried to get cute with it.

I find it odd you compare a roman riler to Christ and a roman ruler’s words to Christ’s words.

 

[avflf]

All due respect, that is not what you did. You took the word “all” as was used in a decree from a Roman ruler, talking about the world as Rome knew it, and comapred to “all” as used by Christ talking about the world and people and HE knew it. Then you tried to get cute with it.

I find it odd you compare a roman riler to Christ and a roman ruler’s words to Christ’s words.

Where did you read that Christ said all had to be baptized?
I’m not comparing Roman rulers with Christ. I’m comparing what the word “all” means in various parts of the Bible. Maybe I’m not making myself clear but I can do no better…

 

[SirThomasMore]

Where did you read that Christ said all had to be baptized?
I’m not comparing Roman rulers with Christ. I’m comparing what the word “all” means in various parts of the Bible. Maybe I’m not making myself clear but I can do no better…

lol…you are comparing the word “all” as said by a Roman Ruler regarding taxes" to the word “all” as used by Christ (or his Aposdtles) regarding salvation for everyone.

I still find it odd

 

[avflf]

lol…you are comparing the word “all” as said by a Roman Ruler regarding taxes" to the word “all” as used by Christ (or his Aposdtles) regarding salvation for everyone.

I still find it odd

Oh, forget it …

 

[SirThomasMore]

Oh, forget it …

I find that a very wise choice.

Be Blessed

 

[Brian_Culliton]

From Avfif:

“Where did you read that Christ said all had to be baptized?”

SirThomasMoore,

It’s a simple question; would you mind answering it?

 

[Esdra]

Never said it was not important. I said it was not necessary for baptism. If you claim it is, then you must, by definition, believe Jesus was sinful.

Hi

Jesus was of course not sinful, for he IS God. God can’t be sinful.

Jesus didn’t need baptism (cf. Mt 3:14) - but he did let baptize him so that he may fulfill God’s will (cf. 3:15). Jesus Baptism was necessary so that all would know that He is the Son of the Most High (cf. Mt 3:17)

I hope I am clear.

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

From Avfif:

“Where did you read that Christ said all had to be baptized?”

SirThomasMoore,

It’s a simple question; would you mind answering it?

Dear Avfif, dear SirThomasMoore,

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "

BUT, to make that clear, it says here not that all Children should be baptized! First you have to repent and accept Jesus as your Savior. Children are innocent (“sinless”) up to about 12 years.

cf. Mark 10,14
But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

• They don’t need to repent, nor can they personally accept Jesus as their Savior, for they don’t understand what He did for mankind!
• Why should God say that “of such is the kingdom of God” if Children also are sinful and need to repent? Do Sinners have place in the kingdom of God? No, not really, right? Well, they do. But when Jesus says “of such is the kingdom of God” I rather think that they are innocent - for everything in Heaven is sinless! The Angels are, God is.
  However in Hell there are the Sinners who don’t want to repent and don’t want to accept God’s offer in Jesus’ death on the Cross!
  To conclude, I am SURE that there are NO CHILDREN (under let’s say 12) in Hell!

Esdra

 

[SirThomasMore]

Hi

Jesus was of course not sinful, for he IS God. God can’t be sinful.

Jesus didn’t need baptism (cf. Mt 3:14) - but he did let baptize him so that he may fulfill God’s will (cf. 3:15). Jesus Baptism was necessary so that all would know that He is the Son of the Most High (cf. Mt 3:17)

I hope I am clear.

EXACTLY!!! And that is why infants are baptized! You hit the nail on the head and that was the point I was hoping everyone would get.

Thank you!!!
Esdra

 

[Esdra]

EXACTLY!!! And that is why infants are baptized! You hit the nail on the head and that was the point I was hoping everyone would get.

Thank you!!!

Dear Thomas,

but know you have to explain me what Jesus’ Baptism has to do with Infant Baptism!
I guess you know my view, and those of most Protestants, about Baptism. I mean I would never have come to the idea that my interpretation has anything to do with Infant Baptism…
I mean I think it is nice that we can agree on something but I simply don’t really get you…

Esdra

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Oh my rinnie, I had thought better of you. You originally asked

:
Originally Posted by rinnie
[/sign]

Richard please prove to us that the CC is not Christ’s Church. Thanks

To which I replied

:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
You can’t prove a negative rinnie. That’s like asking me to prove that Monday isn’t Teusday. You need to prove that it is.

To which you reply

Oh my Richard you don’t know that there is a difference between the days of the week either:bigyikes:

I guess 1+1 does not equal 2 either.

Believe me Monday is not Tuesday and Wednesday is not Thursday. Ask a lst grader maybe they can explain it to you.

Maybe pre-school actually. I think that when they learn the days of the week.:whacky:

I was using a very common figure of speech called simile and I was not asking a question I was making a statement. That proving that the CC was not Christ’s church was like trying to prove that Monday was not Teusday, very difficult to do. But you knew that didn’t you rinnie. Instead you try to turn it around and make it seem that I was asking you if Monday was Teusday or some other nonsense. I find this extremely disingenuous and it makes it very difficult for me to continue any kind of dialogue with you. I really thought that you were interested in carrying on a valid dialoge. But it seems you’re more interested in ad hominems and playing silly word games. Peace be with you.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Dear Thomas,

but know you have to explain me what Jesus’ Baptism has to do with Infant Baptism!

You already said it. To comply with the will of God. All need to be baptized. And you have explained why.

Again, I have made the challenge. Show me where the Bible says that only adults need to be baptized or that there is an age given. I will gladly listen

I

 

[Esdra]

Esdra;6657011:

Dear Thomas,

but know you have to explain me what Jesus’ Baptism has to do with Infant Baptism!

You already said it. To comply with the will of God. All need to be baptized. And you have explained why.

Again, I have made the challenge. Show me where the Bible says that only adults need to be baptized or that there is an age given. I will gladly listen

I

Hi,
Well, RichardKastner has often said, inJohn 3 it says:
Bible:

John 3
The New Birth
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named (A)Nicodemus, a (B)ruler of the Jews;

2this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “(C)Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these (D)signs that You do unless (E)God is with him.”

3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a man (F)is born again he cannot see (G)the kingdom of God

."

4Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”

5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of (H)water and the Spirit he cannot enter into (I)the kingdom of God.

6"(J)That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

As far as I know the Scriptures, there are no other verses concerning infant baptism!

This is what I found in the Internet what most Protestant Churches say about Infant Baptism (I translated it from a German Website!):

http://www.bibelstudien-institut.at/rund-um-die-bibel/bibelfragen/36/Muessen-auch-Kinder-getauft-werden/:

Baptism of Children was not custom among the Ancient Christians. An important precondition to make the new covenant with God is the willful yes to God - or as the Bible states it - faith!

Jesus has assured his disciples that Children will earn the Kingdom of God. (Mt 19:14). It is God’s will that noone of those get lost (Mt. 18:14). Paulus also strives this thought when he writes to the Corinthians that Children are holy through their faithful parents (1 Cor 7:14) this means they are saved and belong already to God. Behind this statement is the thought that the Christian Community is the spiritual People of Israel.

This means that a Child of Christian parents is already a member of the new-testimonial People of God. Later on, however, when it is grown up, it has to decide whether it still wants to be a Christian or not. This is done through faith-baptism. Precondition is that it has understood and believes that Jesus died for it on the Cross!

This means that not the baptism itself saves but the personal believe in the Mercy of God in Christ Jesus!

I hope it is clear what I want to say. I think my translation is not very good…

Esdra

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6657096:

Hi,
Well, RichardKastner has often said, inJohn 3 it says:

As far as I know the Scriptures, there are no other verses concerning infant baptism!

This is what I found in the Internet what most Protestant Churches say about Infant Baptism (I translated it from a German Website!):

I hope it is clear what I want to say. I think my translation is not very good…

Esdra

Well, you already said that no one can enter heaven lest they baptized. There is no age limitation given. I asked you for an age limit and you posted a lost of verses that did not comply. I will ask again, post me a verse that gives an age.

In the meantime, in Acts, it says WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS were baptized. Now, in Texas, households would mean all in the house, including infants.

Now, I am asking nicely…show me a verse where it say “only over 8 should be baptized” or " infants should not be baptized". I am waiting.

 

[Esdra]

Esdra;6657159:

Well, you already said that no one can enter heaven lest they baptized. There is no age limitation given. I asked you for an age limit and you posted a lost of verses that did not comply. I will ask again, post me a verse that gives an age.

In the meantime, in Acts, it says WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS were baptized. Now, in Texas, households would mean all in the house, including infants.

**
This means that a Child of Christian parents is already a member of the new-testimonial People of God. Later on, however, when it is grown up, it has to decide whether it still wants to be a Christian or not. This is done through faith-baptism. Precondition is that it has understood and believes that Jesus died for it on the Cross! This means that not the baptism itself saves but the personal believe in the Mercy of God in Christ Jesus!**

Do I really have to repeat myself? Yes, it says that THE WHOLE HOUSEHOLD was baptised, but you can read above why Children are not meant.

Now, I am asking nicely…show me a verse where it say “only over 8 should be baptized” or " infants should not be baptized". I am waiting.

**It doesn’t. BUT, does it say THAT children have to be baptised?? – No, it doesn’t either.

I really have the feeling, my dearest Thomas, that you don’t read properly through what I am writing. (Just as RichardKastner had with rinnie here in the same post!)I have written my statement now at least 2 times.
Noone can be baptised if they don’t repent and accept Jesus as their Savior and don’t understand what He had done for us on the Cross!!**
ERGO - infants can’t be and also don’t need to be baptised. (see my two, now even three posts, of that topic!!

Esdra

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6657205:

**It doesn’t. BUT, does it say THAT children have to be baptised?? – No, it doesn’t either.

Sure it does…but only…and I say ONLY if you consider infants to be people and if you consider infants to be part of households.

And only you can answer that question…**

 

[rinnie]

SirThomasMore;6657205:

**It doesn’t. BUT, does it say THAT children have to be baptised?? – No, it doesn’t either.

I really have the feeling, my dearest Thomas, that you don’t read properly through what I am writing. (Just as RichardKastner had with rinnie here in the same post!)I have written my statement now at least 2 times.
Noone can be baptised if they don’t repent and accept Jesus as their Savior and don’t understand what He had done for us on the Cross!!**

ERGO - infants can’t be and also don’t need to be baptised. (see my two, now even three posts, of that topic!!

Esdra

Esdra where does it say in the bible or SS that you must repent in order to BE Baptised?

Mark 1:4 Why is John proclaiming A Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 3:3 John the Baptist still proclaiming a baptism OF repentance FOR the forgiveness of sins.

Now do you deny a baptism OF repentance? Because while no one denys that we must repent AND be baptised. No where in scripture does it say it is neccessary to repent BEFORE one can be baptised. If so please show it to me.

THen show me where scripture states as you did that infants Do not need to be Baptised. Please show it to me.

Do you not understand that when one if baptised their sins of Original Sin are wiped away. We do not repent nor confess Original sin now do we? Where does it say that repentance of Original Sin is necessary to be baptised?

If you read scripture it is quite clear to tell you that by his death on the Cross Jesus wiped out Original Sin. When one is baptised that is how OS is wiped out. Again I do not recall scripture saying we must repent OS? Please show it to me. Because I sure missed it.

And by the way Richard stated that NO MAN can enter heaven without being baptised. I asked Richard does that mean a WOMAN CAN? Richard refused or could not understand my point, are you missing it also?