Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[dianaiad]

Why? Because Jesus said, “let the children come to me.” What better reason do you want?

Remember, that quote is from a specific occasion where people were attempting to prevent Him from being swarmed by (probably) very active, curious and misbehaving children. He told the adults to stop it, and let 'em come, for 'such is the kingdom of heaven."

He didn’t say anything about getting them baptized before He would accept them. In fact, when I read that story, I got the impression that it isn’t an argument FOR infant baptism, but rather an argument against. It is not those who say that infants don’t need baptism who are preventing them from going to Him, but rather those who insist that they do.

You are saying, in effect 'I don’t care how young you are, you can’t go to Him until you’ve been sprinkled properly." I.E, forbiding them to go to Him.

He said 'of such is the Kingdom of Heaven…" speaking of them BEFORE they are baptized.

So, no, I don’t get that argument at all.

 

[Stouts989]

Because children have always been part of God’s covenant. Do you think that Jewish infants understand circumcision and its implications before receiving it? Baptism is the Christian initiation for the new covenant.

Read the first half of Galatians…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

While the Church has never changed what was once official dogma to some other dogma–the fact is that prior to the 1950’s or so, the common understanding promulgated by the Baltimore Catechism and by most books on theology or apologetics is that unbaptised infants go to Limbo. Some Catholic thinkers unabashadly suggested that the unbaptised infant goes directly to Hell. (I think references to this come up in Rumble and Carty’s books , Radio Replies) That has not been the normative teaching of most theologians since at least the late 1950’s and most especially not since the Second Vatican Council. That was all I was saying.

Hi flameburns623;

Point well taken, Limbo was never a Catholic dogma, it was a teaching however, I believe brought about to answer questions of miscarriages, and abortions including topics of suicides happening in the U.S.

Peace be with you

 

[Stouts989]

Some thoughts on Baptism.

Acts 10:44-47

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

The gentiles that were present received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were speaking in tongues and exalting God. They received it just as Peter and the apostles had.

Are they in a state of damnation (the gentiles)?

They haven’t been baptized yet…but received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

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.

When we read a wanted sign like “Wanted for bank robbery”. Do we conclude that someone is wanted so a bank robbery can take place?..NO. They are wanted because the bank robbery already took place.

“for the forgiveness of your sins”. Peter isn’t saying to be baptized so the forgiveness of sin can take place, but to celebrate and proclaim because our sin has already been forgiven.

Ephesians 4:5

5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Which baptism is Paul referring to as the one baptism. The baptism by water…or the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

 

[GodIsGracious]

Some thoughts on Baptism.

Acts 10:44-47

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

The gentiles that were present received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were speaking in tongues and exalting God. They received it just as Peter and the apostles had.

Are they in a state of damnation (the gentiles)?

They haven’t been baptized yet…but received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

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.

When we read a wanted sign like “Wanted for bank robbery”. Do we conclude that someone is wanted so a bank robbery can take place?..NO. They are wanted because the bank robbery already took place.

“for the forgiveness of your sins”. Peter isn’t saying to be baptized so the forgiveness of sin can take place, but to celebrate and proclaim because our sin has already been forgiven.

Ephesians 4:5

5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Which baptism is Paul referring to as the one baptism. The baptism by water…or the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

There is only one baptism.

I think that one of the things you’re missing is the fact that Baptism is a Sacrament. When you receive a sacrament, you receive grace, and grace is a gift of the Holy Spirit. So we’re receiving gifts from the Holy Spirit through the sacrament of baptism.

So when Paul was talking about the Gentiles receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, it was the gift of the grace received through the sacrament of baptism.

 

[Stouts989]

There is only one baptism.

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

Is this verse not translated by Catholics as two baptisms? A baptism of water and a baptism of Spirit? no?

I think that one of the things you’re missing is the fact that Baptism is a Sacrament. When you receive a sacrament, you receive grace, and grace is a gift of the Holy Spirit. So we’re receiving gifts from the Holy Spirit through the sacrament of baptism.

So in order to receive God’s grace we must be baptized? Or is it just one way a person can receive grace?

Also…where in scripture does it says that God’s grace comes through baptism or any other sacrament?

So when Paul was talking about the Gentiles receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, it was the gift of the grace received through the sacrament of baptism.

That’s not what the passage says though. Lets look at it again…

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”
48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

They were baptized after they received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Were these gentiles in a state of damnation after they received the gift of the Holy Spirit and before they were baptized?

Side Note: Luke wrote Acts…not Paul.

 

[rinnie]

but you have to admit that Peter’s speech at Pentecost does not specifically address the infant part of the baptism question. If he is telling EVERYONE to repent and be baptized, then the person who follows his instructions should repent and be baptized. Even a child can repent and be baptized if they are old enough to understand what is is they need to repent of. An infant, however, does not have the capacity for repentance. Maybe you can find other verses that tell infants to be baptized, but all I’m saying is that Peter’s speech at Pentecost doesn’t seem to be one of them.

You are quite correct. That is why when a Catholic is baptised they have God Parents. The job of these God Parents are to promise to bring the child up in the faith until they understand the full meaning of what that Baptism was!

And so I stand with my scripture that all are to be Baptised! All means everyone not just certain people.

Also is you read other scripture it show’s how all members of the household were also baptised. Not just certain people.

Another reason that I do not agree with you is this. All must be Baptised to enter into heaven. Why if a child GOD FORBID does not live until that age of reasoning. No I say you give that Childs soul to God as soon as possible. Let the Holy Spirit enter right off the bat. Its the best thing you can give your Child.

 

[swplan76]

For those who deny infant baptism, the burden of proof is upon you to show that in all of the verses listed there were no infants in all of those households and families.

Jesus Christ said in Matt 19:14, “Let the little children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me.”
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.”
How are they to come to Him unless they are Baptized?
Those who say not to Baptize infants clearly have a Biblical conflict here, and they risk the salvation of the souls of their children…

Can you help with your interpretation of these verse,Thank You

I think you have a good point here. The point most protestants make is that what we see in scripture is people making a choice for baptism. The idea is that what is more important that the actual baptism, is the ability to choose it. A baby doesn’t know what is happening when it is being baptized, where as all people who are baptized in the NT, as far as we can reason, were confronted with the choice and they made it. If I were to sneak into a Buddhist’s home, drug them, take them to church and have them baptized into the Catholic Church, it wouldn’t mean anything, would it? Most protestants might see it that way. Many protestant churches have a dedication ceremony where they bring infant and family to the front of the church and speak words of blessing over the child. The family and congregation are given the opportunity to verbally agree to commit to the child’s spiritual growth. The majority of protestant churches that don’t Christen, encourage children and teens to get baptized when they are ready.

Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to wait until a person can make the decision to commit themselves into His hands through Baptism. I also believe that the Catholic practice of Christening is a good one. I don’t believe in a black and white kind of answer to this. One of the unique things, to mind, about God is that he uses our weakness. He uses our flawed perceptions. You and I are only capable of partial goodness, or partial understanding - I will never fully understand until I’m in heaven. God knows this. Humanity has fallen far short of His goodness, yet He still walks with us and draws us closer to Him as we seek Him - He knows we don’t fully understand and it doesn’t stop Him from blessing us in our imperfection - we don’t have to have it all figured out because He does.

Is adult baptism or infant baptism the right way? I think God might say, “Yes.”

 

[GodIsGracious]

I admit to having a weak ability to be an apologetic, which is why I participate in these forums. But this is not to say that you are right nor that you “won” any particular debate.

That being said, I will ask for help from better apologetics than myself and when I can, I will answer your questions to the best of my ability.

The only thing I have to say right now is your point below about what the passage says or doesn’t say. Yes, I read it. Yes, the passage DOES say that, you simply disagree. Further, you’re not understanding what the Catholic view of baptism and the Sacrament of Baptism is. And as far as I know, as a Catholic and whatever cathechis I have had even as a child, I have never heard that there were two baptisms. Just one. Period. And you baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Further, I can see where you think they received the gift of the Holy Spirit THEN received baptism from what you highlighted. Knowing how you personally interpret the word “till” and “until” regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity leads me to believe that you taking things in a particular literal order without regards what the original writing (that is NOT in English) really meant. I will cease there as I do not want to take this to mean an ad hominem attack, but it is necessary to point out how you are interpreting bible passages to give insight as to your personal background.

That being said, when you take the whole passage into consideration, and the whole gospel, not just cherry picking particular passages, the Catholic teaching of baptism is that it is a Sacrament, a gift from the Holy Spirit that imprints an indellible mark on your soul that cannot be removed.

Incidentally, speaking of cherry picking passages from the bible to defend one’s beliefs, what you have highlighted could be an argument for some heretical groups who only “baptise” in the name of Jesus (and not the Trinity). And yet, this does not mean that it was a correct and legitimate baptism.

I will research your questions later to answer and I do ask for help from better Catholic apologists than I. But I do know that the Sacraments provide grace and are a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is this grace that helps us to continue to stay in communion with Jesus Christ. The Sacrament of Baptism being one.

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

Is this verse not translated by Catholics as two baptisms? A baptism of water and a baptism of Spirit? no?

So in order to receive God’s grace we must be baptized? Or is it just one way a person can receive grace?

Also…where in scripture does it says that God’s grace comes through baptism or any other sacrament?

That’s not what the passage says though. Lets look at it again…

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”
48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

They were baptized after they received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Were these gentiles in a state of damnation after they received the gift of the Holy Spirit and before they were baptized?

Side Note: Luke wrote Acts…not Paul.

 

[Mickey]

The point most protestants make is that what we see in scripture is people making a choice for baptism.

I think that is a silly argument. Jesus Christ says, “Let the little children come to me”. There is no way I can possibly see that Jesus would exclude infants from the glorious sacrament of baptism–because they cannot speak!!! The infants are so pure that they can see the angels. We baptize them as soon as possible for the remission of original sin. As rinnie says, the parents and Godparents then teach them so that they may grow and prosper as devout Christians.

Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to wait until a person can make the decision to commit themselves into His hands through Baptism.

No. We make the decision for our infants. Scripture is mainly talking to adult converts to the faith. When these converts repented and were baptized, they also baptized their entire household–this would include infants. The early Church also corroborates the baptism of infants. I believe the earliest example is St Polycarp.

 

[AlegreFe]

Sandy:

I am a Roman Catholic, formerly a Protestant, returned to the RCC. Please don’t confuse my attempt at analysis of the positions of some Evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants with a defense of or support for those positions.

I was aware of your Catholicity before I replied. My replies were not really for you. They were for those Protestants who do not believe in baptizing their babies.

I offered the best outline of the views of Protestants who reject the necessity of baptism of infants of which I was capable. I tend to think that getting a good understanding of the perspective and reasons of others before launching into a rebuttal can lead to better dialogue and has a better likelihood of arriving at some sort of agreement.

bold emphasis mine, AlegreFe

There is no “agreement” on which to come except to agree to disagree. There is no “common ground” when it comes to baptism. Baptism is for everyone including babies. Better yet, especially babies. The only agreement that could exist is to agree to disagree on what is the truth. And we all know there is only one truth.

 

[Scardinoz]

What about the thief that was crucified beside Jesus?

Also…

“I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Feel free to disagree, but - to me - this makes a clear distinction between being baptised and actually receiving the Holy Spirit.

 

[AlegreFe]

Acts 10:44-47

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

The gentiles that were present received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were speaking in tongues and exalting God. They received it just as Peter and the apostles had.

Are they in a state of damnation (the gentiles)?

They haven’t been baptized yet…but received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

They have not been baptized but the Holy Spirit came to show Peter that it was okay to “water” baptize the gentiles also without first needing to be circumcized. The Holy Spirit came to Peter in a dream first. Do you recall the dream? Do you know why he had that dream? And don’t forget, the whole household of Cornelius was baptized, which more than likely included infants and/or children. Peter would not have baptized them with water if not for the Holy Spirit descending on the gentiles. Peter knows that water baptism is necessary. So even though the Holy Spirit came to the gentiles (their Pentecost), Peter knew that they still needed to be baptized with water. Those verses prove the necessity for water baptism for the whole household. Water & Spirit come together in baptism. They cannot be separated.

If you read the whole bible you will see that whenever water is mentioned, the Spirit or God’s breath is also mentioned; they go hand in hand.

Gen 1:2
…And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Is 44:3
For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the
dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my
blessing on your descendants.

Mt 3:16
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the
water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw
the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;

Acts 8:39
And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord
carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on
his way rejoicing.

1 Jn 5:7-8
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood;
and these three agree.

Rev 22:17
The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say,
“Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires
take the water of life without price.
There are more verses but those will prove my point just fine, that water & Spirit go hand in hand.

This next verse also proves the opposite; no water, no spirit of God
Mt 12:43
“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through
waterless places seeking rest, but finds none.

 

[AlegreFe]

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.

When we read a wanted sign like “Wanted for bank robbery”. Do we conclude that someone is wanted so a bank robbery can take place?..NO. They are wanted because the bank robbery already took place.

“for the forgiveness of your sins”. Peter isn’t saying to be baptized so the forgiveness of sin can take place, but to celebrate and proclaim because our sin has already been forgiven.

That verse says “repent” it does not say “all of you repent” because it was understood that even infants and children were to be baptized & therefore receive the Holy Spirit also. It says “repent” then it says “each of you be baptized” so it was understood that if the head of household repents, then all in the household were to be baptized. If you read on to verse 39 the promise is for their children also. And no, it does not say “to your children except for the infant children.” No, it just says “children.” They did not have to specify because it meant all children including infants. More than likely, most of those households had infants in them.

Here the head of the household is the only one that needed to have faith and the whole household is baptized;
Acts 16:30-34 The Philippian Jailer Converted
30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Baptism is needed for the forgiveness of sins. Peter clearly states it right there in that verse (Acts 2:38). Your analogy is a poor one about the bank robber sign. Baptism clearly “saves” us and cleanses us from the stain of original sin and also from our own personal sin.
1 Pet 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal
of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience,
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[AlegreFe]

Ephesians 4:5

5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Which baptism is Paul referring to as the one baptism. The baptism by water…or the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Paul is referring to baptism by water which brings on the Holy Spirit because there is only one baptism. Baptism by water is not just a sign or symbol of our faith. Baptism by water is necessary. You yourself put the verses in Acts chapter 10. Do you not realize what those verses mean?

In the bible it states that John baptizes with water but that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. When John was baptizing, Jesus had not suffered His Passion yet, and He has not died and risen and ascended yet. So how could the Holy Spirit have come down on those being baptized with water? That did not happen until Pentecost. After that, those who were being baptized with water also received the Holy Spirit. There is the exception of the gentiles because they have not had their “pentecost” yet. But once they did, it was understood that gentiles also could be water baptized and therefore receive the Holy Spirit when baptized with water. Water & Spirit go together, don’t forget. And who could forget the words of Jesus, unless one of born of water & spirit one cannot enter into the Kingdom? When one is baptized with water, the Spirit comes and their souls are cleansed.

 

[dyluck]

Can I add to this forum?

To understand paedobaptism, we have to understand about baptism is it’s purpose.

Baptism in its true nature is “emersion” weather full or partial. John baptized by water; however, there is one greater that comes that will baptize by the Holy Spirit. (Luke 3:16)

I argue that biblically the symbolism of actual baptism is as 100% described in Romans 6. burried (entirely/spiritually) with Christ and risen in a newness of life. This is described seemgly at conversion not birth. Infact, the supernatural account of baptism is not done with water, but with the Holy Sprit. I argue that water baptism is simply an outward representation of an inward reality. (You are dead to sin and alive in Christ where the acts of the believer is characterised by a newness of life through the works of the Holy Spirit). You hate the things God hates and love the things God loves. Not because you have to, but because it is who you are now. (See the new conenant). I could go on an on about regeneration itself, but it directly relates to baptism as a symbol of regeneration.

Is being baptized by water necissary for salvation? I argue no… bible does not give water baptism as a salvation preqrequisite, which is left to the hands and decisions of men; however, you should get water baptized IF you are indeed regenerated (changed) and as a testimony confession of what has happend to you… It does say, though, baptism by the **Holy Spirit ** IS part of salvation (Mark 16:16). It is a part of when God said he would remove your heart of stone and put in a heart of flesh Eze 36:26 and backed up by Romans 6, Galatians 5. Notice how one is controled by man and the other controled by God… People don’t like God to be in control…

Let me give you probably the biggest contrast as an example of Water baptism and Holy Sprit baptism. Do a search for the versus in the new testament about “Circumcision and Uncircumsission”, read the chapters and how it relates to regeneration and baptsim. You will see what I mean.

Water baptism does not bring on Holy Spirit baptism, only God brings Holy Sprit baptism. This is evidenced when a church was baptizing with water and the Paul comes and baptises them with the Holy Spirit. Which one do you think is the one being talked about in Mark 16:16? Therefore… Salvation does not get imputed to babies nor does it affect their spiritual walk with God. Nor does Man have power over or decision of salvation or conversion.

Now here’s the question paedobaptists have to answer… Where in babie’s life, born in sin is they being revealed the grace of God and has been transformed by the Holy Spirit?

The potential concequence of paedobaptism is this:
A congregation go on pretending they are Saved because one time they were baptized because their parents took them a infants to a Priest/Pastor who declared them saved. Where is God in this?

Now, although not in the bibe either, I don’t see dedication harmfull.
A parental promise to God you will raise your children under the Lordship of Christ and be an example to them.

Hopefully that makes sense, if you want more actual biblical references to anything I said, please let me know.

 

[AlegreFe]

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

Is this verse not translated by Catholics as two baptisms? A baptism of water and a baptism of Spirit? no?

No, there is only ONE baptism. Please read my previous reply to you about how water & spirit come together now since the first Pentecost (which is this coming Sunday!! woohoo! Come Holy Spirit!).

So in order to receive God’s grace we must be baptized? Or is it just one way a person can receive grace?

Baptism is a way of receiving Sanctifying Grace. We also receive Sanctifying Grace through other sacraments, for instance, through the Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession.

The Church specifies two kinds of grace;

1. 
   *]Actual grace: granted by God for the performance of salutary acts and is present and disappears with the action itself.
   *]Sanctifying grace: a permanent part of our soul as long as we cooperate with its effects. When we have sanctifying grace in our soul we are said to be in the state of grace.
   
   So whenever you do a charitable act, it is because you received God’s grace (actual) and you acted as a result of receiving it. That grace disappears as soon as the act is completed. So in answer to your question, no you do not need the sacraments to receive God’s grace. Even atheists receive God’s grace. I know of one atheist who is a kind man to others. There’s only one reason for his kindness, God’s actual grace.
   

   Also…where in scripture does it says that God’s grace comes through baptism or any other sacrament?

   A sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Christ which effectively communicates the grace it signifies. When we receive a Sacrament, we are receiving sanctifying grace. It is because of actual grace that we even frequent the sacraments in order to receive sanctifying grace.
   
   I assume you realize that the only reason we can receive grace is because of Jesus dying on the cross for us. Baptism in the bible clearly states that we die to ourselves, we die with Jesus and we are born anew with Jesus. It happens because of the death & resurrection of Jesus.
   
   Over the centuries the Catholic Church has had to defend the fact that Christ Himself instituted all seven sacraments. He did so personally and immediately. He determined the substance of each sacrament; its essential ritual and content; who is empowered to confer the sacraments, and on whom they may be conferred; what material is to be used; and essentially how each sacrament is to be an effective sign of grace.
   
   As Catholics, we recognize two sources of divine revelation, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Consequently we do not expect to find explicit evidence in the Bible for Christ’s institution of all the sacraments. No matter. The Church teaches infallibly that “the sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Christ,” that “these same sacraments of the New Law differ from the sacraments of the Old Law” and that “there are neither more than seven nor fewer than seven sacraments” (Council of Trent, March 3, 1547).
   

   

   GodIsGracious:
   

   So when Paul was talking about the Gentiles receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, it was the gift of the grace received through the sacrament of baptism.

   That’s not what the passage says though. Lets look at it again…
   
   Acts 10:44-48
   44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
   45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
   46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
   47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”
   48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
   
   They were baptized after they received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
   
   Were these gentiles in a state of damnation after they received the gift of the Holy Spirit and before they were baptized?

   I hope you read my previous reply to you about these passages. These are the gentiles who were not in the upper room when the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples. So they had their own “pentecost” when the Holy Spirit came down on the gentiles. Peter took it as a reason for baptizing them also even though they have not been circumcized. But when they believed, everyone in their household was baptized, everyone!
   
   For the Christians, “water” baptism meant receiving the Holy Spirit but this was only after that first Pentecost. After that, all “water” baptisms were automatically accepted as also receiving the Holy Spirit. So after the gentiles had their own pentecost, they too were to be water baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit and be forgiven of their sins.

 

[AlegreFe]

I think you have a good point here. The point most protestants make is that what we see in scripture is people making a choice for baptism. The idea is that what is more important that the actual baptism, is the ability to choose it. A baby doesn’t know what is happening when it is being baptized, where as all people who are baptized in the NT, as far as we can reason, were confronted with the choice and they made it.

Yes they made the choice to be baptized because they received the Word of God and believed. But when they were baptized, their whole households were baptized. The households back them more than likely included infants and children. Those children or even other members of the household did not have to be believers at the time of their baptism. But I am pretty sure that those children who were also baptized were brought up in the Christian faith and were taught by their parents and other adults in the households.

If I were to sneak into a Buddhist’s home, drug them, take them to church and have them baptized into the Catholic Church, it wouldn’t mean anything, would it?

Ha, funny you say that. The situation itself is not funny, in fact it doesn’t seem real even. But if someone gets baptized and they did not know what was going on, that baptism counts and as a result, a permanent mark was put on their soul. That’s not to say that the grace received will be “activated” so to speak, until they do know what’s going on and until they actually study and live the faith. Then the Holy Spirit will automatically come into their soul without having to be baptized again. Remember, there is only one baptism. So yes, it would mean something.

Most protestants might see it that way. Many protestant churches have a dedication ceremony where they bring infant and family to the front of the church and speak words of blessing over the child. The family and congregation are given the opportunity to verbally agree to commit to the child’s spiritual growth. The majority of protestant churches that don’t Christen, encourage children and teens to get baptized when they are ready.

That’s great that this is done. We in the Catholic Church also do this. But we call it Baptism! And the children are brought up in the faith and they are taught by the parents and Godparents. The children are then further catechized to then receive the Sacrament of Confirmation so they can speak for themselves and receive another indelible mark on their soul with Confirmation.

Baptism should be a given in Christian families just as teaching the family language is a given. If your mother waited for you to decide for yourself to speak the language of your parents, where would that leave you as a child not learning the language? It’s a given because your parents speak to you and you learn as they speak. Well the same with the faith. If the parents are living the Christian faith it is almost automatically taught to the children. It just has to further be encouraged by the parents as the child grows. The next obvious step is Confirmation.

Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to wait until a person can make the decision to commit themselves into His hands through Baptism.

Why wait if baptism saves? Jesus said, let the children come to me. In the Old Testament, circumcision was the way to enter into the covenant with God. Baptism is the new “circumcision” in the New Testament. Circumcision happened at 8 days old. The only argument the ECFs had was why wait until 8 days, why not baptize as soon as possible?

I also believe that the Catholic practice of Christening is a good one. I don’t believe in a black and white kind of answer to this. One of the unique things, to mind, about God is that he uses our weakness. He uses our flawed perceptions.

The Church does not have any “flawed perceptions” when it comes to teaching the faith. The Church knows exactly what Jesus meant when He told the disciples to go preach the Gospel and to baptize all nations.

You and I are only capable of partial goodness, or partial understanding - I will never fully understand until I’m in heaven. God knows this. Humanity has fallen far short of His goodness, yet He still walks with us and draws us closer to Him as we seek Him - He knows we don’t fully understand and it doesn’t stop Him from blessing us in our imperfection - we don’t have to have it all figured out because He does.

That is why I’m so grateful to be part of God’s Church, the Catholic Church. Because the Church knows the faith inside & out. I don’t have to figure anything out for myself. I just have to look to the Church for answers and there they are!

Is adult baptism or infant baptism the right way? I think God might say, “Yes.”

Infant baptism is the “right way” when the parents are believing parents. Adult baptism is the “right way” when a non-Christian adult is initiated into the Christian faith. That’s how it all started in the bible. All who were being baptized were believing adults who had received the Good News. But those who were believing adults had their whole households baptized. Always remember that. So from then on, all, including infants & children, were baptized and then brought up in the faith.

 

[AlegreFe]

What about the thief that was crucified beside Jesus?

The theif, Saint Dismas had a “baptism of desire” not to mention that he suffered right next to Jesus on the cross. I would say, that qualifies Saint Dismas to go straight to heaven!

“I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Feel free to disagree, but - to me - this makes a clear distinction between being baptised and actually receiving the Holy Spirit.

When John the Baptist was baptizing with water, Jesus had not yet died on the cross and therefore not yet ascended into heaven and therefore the Holy Spirit had not yet come. But once the Holy Spirit came, it was clear to the Apostles that “water” baptism meant receiving the Holy Spirit. Please see my other posts on the water & spirit being as one and coming together. It’s all over scripture.

Acts 8:36-39
36 And as they were going along the road they came to some
water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents
me from being baptized?”
38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went
down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the
Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and
went on his way rejoicing.

 

[RedSoxWife]

Hi Dyluck! Welcome to the forum!

Is being baptized by water necissary for salvation? I argue no… bible does not give water baptism as a salvation preqrequisite, which is left to the hands and decisions of men; however, you should get water baptized IF you are indeed regenerated (changed) and as a testimony confession of what has happend to you… It does say, though, baptism by the **Holy Spirit ** IS part of salvation (Mark 16:16). It is a part of when God said he would remove your heart of stone and put in a heart of flesh Eze 36:26 and backed up by Romans 6, Galatians 5. Notice how one is controled by man and the other controled by God… People don’t like God to be in control…

I was wondering how you deal with John 3:5 if you don’t believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation?

“Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

It’s a verse that bothered me when I was eight years old going to a Southern Baptist church every Sunday and I’m always interested to see how people who believe that baptism is strictly symbolic reconcile that verse with their personal interpretation of the Bible.

The potential concequence of paedobaptism is this:
A congregation go on pretending they are Saved because one time they were baptized because their parents took them a infants to a Priest/Pastor who declared them saved. Where is God in this?

This was something that confused me when I first met my husband, before I converted, and I asked him if he was “saved.” His view on salvation was more in line with Phillippians.

Philippians 2
12 “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.”

In fact I’m not sure he knew what I was talking about when I said “saved.” It’s not really a Catholic concept because being “saved” once and always doesn’t really work with “mortal sins.” If you are truly a practicing Catholic you don’t just take your kid, get them baptized and then show up in time for first communion. You go to Mass every Sunday. You go to regular confession. And yes, you believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

I would worry that a belief in being “saved” would be more likely to lead to the sort of complacent attitude and confidence that would lead to a person going to church, professing their belief in Jesus Christ as the Lord of their Life and Personal Savior, getting baptized and then deciding that they’re saved and since their relationship with God is so personal, they really don’t have a reason to cross the threshold of the church again. And from there it would be very easy to slip back into ones old ways.

One of the first things I noticed when I converted was that there’s a huge difference in Protestant and Catholic semantics. Sometimes it kind of feels like a different language.