Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[rinnie]

Esdra;6657217:

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…**

Exactly in order for them to prove this they must show us that children and infants did not exist in households which is absurd. If that were true there would be no human race

 

[rinnie]

Tell me this esdra. In the States they are doing a census. On this census it state please list the number of people in your entire Household. Now do I not count infants? I would have to in order to continue with your line of reasoning. Do you see what I mean?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Exactly Rinnie. I have had some people tell me that no infants were mentioned in the households, so it is wrong to assume infants were in the household. I reply that women are not specicially mentioned wither, so we must then assume no women were baptized.

Jewish households included the family, extended family, and servants and their familes. Hard to imagine that were no infants in any of those groups.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

And by the way Richard stated that NO MAN can enter heaven without being baptised. I asked Richard does that mean a WOMAN CAN?

Well, actually I didn’t say this at all Jesus did.

Jn3: 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

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

Richard refused or could not understand my point, are you missing it also?

As I recall rinnie, I gave you an excellant exegesis of what Jesus and Nicodemus meant by “man” That being that they were using the term “man” as a generic term meaning an adult of the human race (mankind). So, I guess you’ve evolved from being disingenuous to outright lying but then again I guess that shouldn’t surprise me.

 

[guanophore]

I just wanted to state that a Baby can’t decide for or against christ!

Well, we assume this, but none of us really know.

But this line of reasoning does not make sense of the shadow of baptism in the OT (circumcision). Why were all those children born to the Jews considered included? Why did God command that they be dedicated, and the male children circumcised? Why did God not see it essential that the “baby decide” to be included in the Covenant, or not?

So if it dies, god will take it to him.

There is nothing in scripture that supports such an assertion. It is simple wishful human thinking.

It can’t sin and so also can’t make god angry so that he would throw it in hell “where will be weeping and gnarshing of teeth” (Mt 25,20).

We are all born into original sin. As Jesus said, “he who does not believe is condemned already”. The default destination for human beings born under Adam is death, and hell.

You can imagine that it is rather hard for me to discuss such complicated topics in a foreign language, which English is for me.

I think you are doing great!

This is what I wanted to say. It is simply important that you get baptized when you really believe and want repentance.

This has always been the church teaching with regard to adults.

By the Way: you also force your child into a specific Religion by the infant baptizm.

This reasoning always amazes me. Aside from the pattern set forth in the OT with circumcision, I note that parents decide to immunize their children, make all the decisions about their medical and dental care, select all their clothing, schooling, and every other essential element of their development. Why would parents neglect the most important part of their child’s development?

So, if I would get a daughter or a son I would definitely raise her/him as a Christian.

Why? aren’t you “forcing” the child into Christianity?

But I wouldn’t let her/him to be baptized.

There is no NT teaching that baptism should be withheld from children, about whom it is commanded that we let them come unto Him.

Yes, she/he could even go to the catholic church, if Jesus tells her so…

That is mighty generous of you!

I mean the baptizm with water is really just a sign as I have stated in my previous post. (cf. Mk 1,8) It is much more important that you turn your heart to Jesus, that you repent, and ask Jesus to come into your life.

The Apostles never separated the two.

 

[guanophore]

Baptism requires an expression of faith.

Yes, this is the teaching of the Apostles handed down to us. For those who cannot express their own faith, the faith of their loved ones suffices, just as the faith of the Roman Centurian healed his servant.

I don’t know were you get this from. It’s not from the bible.

Along with the Bible, we have the teachings of the Apostles that were committed to the Church. This is one of them.

We are saved from our sins by His blood. Baptism is the outward sign of our acceptance of that sacrifice.

Indeed, we are saved from our sins by His blood,when we are joined with him in His death through baptism.

Baptism is the outward sign of our acceptance of that sacrifice.

This is a modern evangelical invrention that cannot bre found in scripture. Scripture, in fact, states the opposite - “baptism…now saves you”…

Like circumcision is the outward sign of God’s chosen people in the OT.

So, how come babies were not allowed to choose?

 

[rinnie]

Well, actually I didn’t say this at all Jesus did.

Jn3: 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

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

As I recall rinnie, I gave you an excellant exegesis of what Jesus and Nicodemus meant by “man” That being that they were using the term “man” as a generic term meaning an adult of the human race (mankind). So, I guess you’ve evolved from being disingenuous to outright lying but then again I guess that shouldn’t surprise me.

Thanks there Richard, that is very Christian of you to say. So every man is an adult then?:yawn:

Even a little Man?

But back to the point of the thread there is no where in the bible that states that a Child cannot be baptised. Just statements that say that they must.

Because NO ONE can enter the kingdom without being baptised. Unless now you are going to say Children cannot enter heaven. Nothing surprises me these days.

 

[guanophore]

Do all house holds ALWAYS have infants?

Of course not. But the infants were not excluded from baptism when the whole households were baptized.

Jesus Christ said in Matt 19:14, “Let the little children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me.”

This is NOT about baptism.

Baptism is the means by which we are joined into Him, and become members of His One Body, the Church.

He also said in John 3:5, “…unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.” ‘unless a man …’; notice a man is an adult.

He is speaking to a man, an grown adult, so yes. if the Apostles did not understand, why did Jesus not correct them? Why did the powerful Jesus evident in Revelation chastize them for wrongdoing, when they baptized infants?

Because Jesus loves them so much, He doesn’t require baptism for them.

It is a common misunderstanding that God’s Love is equal to God’s salvation. It is not. God created the earth and everything in it out of His Love. He gave His only Son for love of the world. Yet, we know that not all who are in the world will be saved. He will love them as they pass through the gates of hell, because He loves them enough to allow them to choose.

Your Jesus would deny an unbaptized baby????

He desires that all be saved, yet we know that all are not. We are born into this world under a death sentence, because all of us are included in Adam’s sin. As Jesus said, he who does not believe is condemned already. That condemnation took place in the garden of Eden.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Well, actually I didn’t say this at all Jesus did.

Jn3: 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

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

As I recall rinnie, I gave you an excellant exegesis of what Jesus and Nicodemus meant by “man” That being that they were using the term “man” as a generic term meaning an adult of the human race (mankind). So, I guess you’ve evolved from being disingenuous to outright lying but then again I guess that shouldn’t surprise me.

Is there anything about this post that is not true rinnie? You do remember me talking to you about Jesus use of the word man, don’t you? and then you post this

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?

So let’s call this what it is rinnie. When you posted this you knew it was a lie and you know it is a lie now. So, what does that make you. I guess the only question I have is why do you feel the need to do this and the only answer I can come up with is that you can’t argue your points through the scriptures presented so you make up flaws in my arguments and then you put your little shug face in I assume to show that I just don’t get your profound statements.

Thanks there Richard, that is very Christian of you to say.

I pride myself on being just as honest as I can. I try to follow the example of Jesus. I believ Jesus called people on thier untruths. So, even though you don’t mean it as a complement. Thanks.

So every man is an adult then?:yawn:

From the dictionary
man 1.an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.

But back to the point of the thread there is no where in the bible that states that a Child cannot be baptised. Just statements that say that they must.

Because NO ONE can enter the kingdom without being baptised. Unless now you are going to say Children cannot enter heaven. Nothing surprises me these days.

Jesus is the one we need to turn to for the answer to this and He says Jn3: 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
The first step is to be born again. What does that mean? Well, it means what I have been saying all along. that being that we need to renounce our old man of sin (repent) and accept the new life made available to us in Christ. Then He says 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. We need to be baptised as an announcement of our acceptance of Christ. Baptism without this acceptance of Jesus ie. infant baptism is worthless.

 

[avflf]

Richard,

I also am at a loss when the proponents of Child Baptism compare it with circumcision in one hand (circumcision was performed on MALES only} and then ask if Women were not allowed to be baptized because Scripture says “Except a MAN be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”.
The linguistic somersaults they rely on are a wonder to see … and most amusing.
The fact that the word “baptism” in Greek meant " to immerse or submerge in a liquid" and that was the method right up to the 2nd Century, with the adult candidate fasting for a number of days preceding the ceremony did not stop the Church from instituting both infant baptism and the “sprinkling method”. The two had to go together as they might, inadvertently, drown the little tyke.
But they can always fall back on “Tradition” to get their point across, which is very handy.
Wiki has an interesting article on infant baptism - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism

 

[Esdra]

Esdra;6657217:

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.

Please have a look at Acts 2,38

:

** 38**Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I think this verse is VERY clear that repentance is nesessary BEFORE Baptism!

Or have a look here: Jesus Himself said that Salvation depends upon Believe AND Baptism. Mark 16,16:

16 “He who** has believed and has been baptized** shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”

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

Jesus promised that Children would have eternal life.
Have a look here: Matthew 19,13-15
**13 **Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
15 After laying His hands on them, He departed from there.

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?

Did I say that? „Each human is judged only for his own sins, not for those of the ancestors (=The Original Sin).“ Because, as you have written correctly, The Original Sin was wiped out by Jesus’ Death on the Cross!

…]

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?

Of course NO MAN also refers to NO WOMAN. Men and women have to baptised. In most modern Bible Translations the authors are trying to use Gender-language!

 

[SirThomasMore]

rinnie;6657611:
Thats fine. I must, by your ideas, accept the fact that your church does not consider infants infants as part of households or as part of the human race.

I am still waiting for a Scripture that places an age on Baptism. I have been waiting for several days.

Be Blessed

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,

I also am at a loss when the proponents of Child Baptism compare it with circumcision in one hand (circumcision was performed on MALES only} and then ask if Women were not allowed to be baptized because Scripture says “Except a MAN be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”.
The linguistic somersaults they rely on are a wonder to see … and most amusing.
The fact that the word “baptism” in Greek meant " to immerse or submerge in a liquid" and that was the method right up to the 2nd Century, with the adult candidate fasting for a number of days preceding the ceremony did not stop the Church from instituting both infant baptism and the “sprinkling method”. The two had to go together as they might, inadvertently, drown the little tyke.
But they can always fall back on “Tradition” to get their point across, which is very handy.
Wiki has an interesting article on infant baptism - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism

Avflf. here is an article that you might find interesting. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptistery Altho infant baptisms probably were performed in the early Church. From about the middle of the third cent. (that can be confimed before this baptisms were performed in pools, rivers, or lakes) until well into the twelfth cent. The prefered means of baptism in the CC was adult baptism by full emmersion. We see this in the architecture of the church.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Avflf. here is an article that you might find interesting. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptistery Altho infant baptisms probably were performed in the early Church. From about the middle of the third cent. (that can be confimed before this baptisms were performed in pools, rivers, or lakes) until well into the twelfth cent. The prefered means of baptism in the CC was adult baptism by full emmersion. We see this in the architecture of the church.

Not true. Just because baptism was done in rivers does not mean they were immersed. I point you to Acts where, in the city, whole households were baptized. Doubtful that mthere were rivers running thru their houses.

The Didache states that baptism could be done by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. There is no set way.

 

[Esdra]

Esdra;6663740:

Thats fine. I must, by your ideas, accept the fact that your church does not consider infants infants as part of households or as part of the human race.

I am still waiting for a Scripture that places an age on Baptism. I have been waiting for several days.

Be Blessed

Hi Thomas,

Okay, I tell you the last time: There is NO AGE GIVEN IN THE HOLY BIBLE for Baptism!

The only thing we can read out of the Bible is **that

Esdra:

Jesus promised that Children would have eternal life.

**
Have a look here: Matthew 19,13-15
13 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
15 After laying His hands on them, He departed from there.

And out of History it is clear that Children are children up to about 12 in the Antiquity!

Furhtermore in the Bible it says:
Esdra & RichardKastner:

Jn3: 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,** Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.**

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

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

And of course, as I already have written to rinnie, not only men but also women are meant in these Verses.

Children ARE part of the household and part of the human race, of course!

BUT Children don’t need baptism. Why this is so you can read in Post #494 in this thread.

I really don’t want to repeat myself over and over… It’s getting hard. I’d really like to write something in other threads, but just can’t - because I have to repeat myself over and over again in this thread and in “How many deny Christ in the Holy Eucharist?”

Esdra

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6664661:

Hi Thomas,

Okay, I tell you the last time: There is NO AGE GIVEN IN THE HOLY BIBLE for Baptism!

Exactly! ALL need to be baptized. Thank you for admitting that. And, ALL MEANS ALL. All does NOT mean “All except those who reach an age we think is right.”

The only thing we can read out of the Bible is **that

is that ALL need to be baptized and WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS were baptized…**

And out of History it is clear that Children are children up to about 12 in the Antiquity!

So? Children are part of ALL and WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS

Thanks for admitting that

And of course, as I already have written to rinnie, not only men but also women are meant in these Verses.

Yes, women are also part of WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS

Children ARE part of the household and part of the human race, of course!

Then they should be baptized…unless for some reason you do not believe the Bible, where it says WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS were baptized…

You do believe the Bible, right?

BUT Children don’t need baptism.

Please show me the verse in the Bible where Jesus or an Apostle said, “children do not need to be baptized”. I will be waiting.

 

[FantomScholar]

Esdra;6664843:

SirThomasMore;6664661:

Hi Thomas,

Okay, I tell you the last time: There is NO AGE GIVEN IN THE HOLY BIBLE for Baptism!

Exactly! ALL need to be baptized. Thank you for admitting that. And, ALL MEANS ALL. All does NOT mean “All except those who reach an age we think is right.”

I realize that you’re having a debate with Esdra over this and I’m kind of coming into the middle of it. However, while there is no age given in the Bible for when Baptism is to be administered, since Baptism is given with the prerequisite command to repent and believe the gospel, the “all” of Baptism is “all those who repent and profess faith in Christ.” I don’t believe in age of accountability, so I can’t address that part.

The only thing we can read out of the Bible is **that

is that ALL need to be baptized and WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS were baptized…**

I’m assuming your argument here is that whole households includes infants and thus infants were baptized as part of the household. This is not warranted, however, by the text. Since the households also included adults, we cannot assume that every adult in the household was baptized, unless you want to make the argument that adults in the household were baptized even if they said they rejected the gospel, i.e., you would have to argue that even unbelievers in the household were baptized. If unbelieving adults (slaves, family members, etc.) were not baptized, it is safe to assume that any unbelieving infants were also not baptized.

At least one of the household texts specifically mentioned that those in the household *who believed *were baptized,

 

[Esdra]

Esdra;6664843:

SirThomasMore;6664661:

BUT Children don’t need baptism.

Please show me the verse in the Bible where Jesus or an Apostle said, “children do not need to be baptized”. I will be waiting.

Okay, once more: There is no Verse with an exact age ('though I am in the mean time quite sure that you don’t even bother to read my posts, but anyway…)

We can read out from Matthew 19:13-15 that “The heaven belongs to children”. - For me that means that they are sinless. **And baptism only makes sense if you accepted Jesus beforehand and confessed your sins to Him. - This is what faith-baptism is all about. - And the first Christians did that for a long time! **(Please also refer again my other post where I have written WHY Children don’t need baptism!!)

Or why should Jesus say in Mark 9:42
Bible:

42"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. ?

It is because He loves them and doesn’t want to them to be dragged away from Him because they are sinnless and innocent! - And please don’t come now with the Original Sin that the child is judged by God. - For the Original Sin was crucified with Jesus and is no longer there!

 

[SirThomasMore]

that is what I thought. You can;t produce a verse that says children can;t be baptized. You can;t produce a verse that places age limits. You CAN produce verses that says all should be baptized and that whole households were baptized.

That about sums it up and you have proven my point that infants should be baptized.

Thank you.

 

[Esdra]

that is what I thought. You can;t produce a verse that says children can;t be baptized. You can;t produce a verse that places age limits. You CAN produce verses that says all should be baptized and that whole households were baptized.

That about sums it up and you have proven my point that infants should be baptized.

Thank you.

Thomas,

I had a look on other threads of you in this board. And I found out that you are an attorney. Yes, you definitely are, I can say now.

For ME, your argumentation is not logical. Why should I have proved that infant-baptism is necessary?!

Well, I think I will quit writing in this thread - it is getting too hot in here for me.
I have written my opinion (at least 4 times!!) - and tha’ts sufficient.

Esdra