Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[SirThomasMore]

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.

Thank you

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

Actually, it is very logical. You cannot find any verses that say what you want them to say. Oh, you TRY to make them say what you want them to say, but they just do not say it. On the other hand, we have verses that clearly show that ALL should be baptized and WHOLE households were baptized. Since you have agreed that infants are part of ALL and WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS, then you have made my point. And for that, I thank you

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.

Yes…and that is why we have over 40,000 denominations in this country alone…people have an opinion, and it is enough for them.

I will say this…I would rather baptize an infant and find out in heaven it wasn;t really necessary and no harm was done that not baptize an infant and find out in heaven it really WAS required and I did my infant wrong.

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

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.

Thank you

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

Actually, it is very logical. You cannot find any verses that say what you want them to say. Oh, you TRY to make them say what you want them to say, but they just do not say it. On the other hand, we have verses that clearly show that ALL should be baptized and WHOLE households were baptized. Since you have agreed that infants are part of ALL and WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS, then you have made my point. And for that, I thank you

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.

Yes…and that is why we have over 40,000 denominations in this country alone…people have an opinion, and it is enough for them.

**But, aren’t the Catholics the same? Are they not also “satisfied” to have their opinion? - At least they are claiming that they are the only True Church founded by Christ Himself with the Full Truth?!

Esdra**

I will say this…I would rather baptize an infant and find out in heaven it wasn;t really necessary and no harm was done that not baptize an infant and find out in heaven it really WAS required and I did my infant wrong.

Esdra

 

[SirThomasMore]

Esdra:
No, we have fact.

You cannot find any verses that say what you want them to say. Oh, you TRY to make them say what you want them to say, but they just do not say it. On the other hand, we have verses that clearly show that ALL should be baptized and WHOLE households were baptized. Since you have agreed that infants are part of ALL and WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS, then you have made my point. And for that, I thank you

 

[Esdra]

No, we have fact.

**
I think, no I am sure that you will have the same difficulties to proove that the ancient Christians were Catholics as I, according to you, have finding a bible verse that clearly said that infant baptizm is not necessary.

Oh, I really envy the LDS Church they have a clear verse against infant Baptizm in the Book of Mormon: click here.**

You cannot find any verses that say what you want them to say. Oh, you TRY to make them say what you want them to say, but they just do not say it. On the other hand, we have verses that clearly show that ALL should be baptized and WHOLE households were baptized. Since you have agreed that infants are part of ALL and WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS, then you have made my point. And for that, I thank you

 

[SirThomasMore]

Esdra:
Naaa…like I said…you can;t support what you believe, I can. ALL means ALL…except to Baptists and Mormon s, where infants are not parts of householkds and ALL means SOME

lol

By the way, I am pleased you did not keep your word and stop posting here. It is fun for me

 

[guanophore]

No, actually we do it because that’s what Jesus tells us to do.

I am sure it seems that way to you. However, what you have done is disregard those to whom His message was given, and refused to receive that which was committed to the Apostles.

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

He is telling us that we as adults must make a decision to follow Him.

I am pleased that you have been able to cling to this part of the Apostolic Teaching. Some is better than none!

He realises that Jesus is talking about adults here.

Exactly!

This is where one runs into trouble trying to derive theology from single verses.

There is nothing about this exchange that even suggests that an infant should be baptised.

Nor is there anything that implies they should not.

The Aposlte who wrote this was teaching his disciples to baptize infants, and did so himself.

And what it is about is faith and that is something that an infant is not capable of.

You are assuming this.

However, the faith upon which infants are baptized is that of their parents and Godparents.

 

[guanophore]

Catholic baptism of infants does not take what they want into account at all, and once done, the doctrine is that it cannot be undone; it leaves an ‘indelible mark’ upon the soul that cannot be removed, for eternity…and the child who was baptised never has a choice in the matter.

Ever.

I will freely admit that this idea bothers me, as it does most Mormons I have spoken to about it: this idea of being able to do something to others that is so important to their eternal lives, without their knowledge, consent—or their being able to disavow it, ever.

This is not true, dianaiad. The vast majority of American Catholics have disavowed their baptism. Every baptized person has a choice about whether or not they wish to continue walking in their faith, no matter how old they are when they are baptized. However, as scripture says, those who have tasted of the heavenly gift and then reject it are in a worse state than they would have been had they never received the Truth.

 

[guanophore]

only a believer can show the community he is a brother Christian through the ceremonial and public baptism.

This is a modern American Evangelical notion that has no source in Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

That this is proof that we should baptise infants?

No. Catholics baptize infants because this practice was handed down to us from the Apostles.

Again I must ask. How is it possible for an infant to achieve this spiritual regeneration?

It is not possible for any human of any age to “achieve” spiritual regeneration. It is a free gift of God that is worked in our heart by the HS. It is the “circumcision made without hands” (by the HS).

 

[guanophore]

I’m assuming by this statement that you are putting yourself on God’s throne and judging Luther.

No, Richard. None of us are able to see into his heart. what we can do is look at his actions, and the fruit of them. We see that he scattered the flock, and fell into sin. We see that he departed from the Apostolic doctrines and created his own. We are to judge with right judgement, and it is very important that we recognize heresy when we see it, so we don’t fall into it.

 

[rinnie]

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.”

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.

Hope you get your answer quicker then I. I asked them to prove it weeks ago

 

[rinnie]

SirThomasMore;6664661:

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

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

Furhtermore in the Bible it says:

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**

For Goodness sakes Esdra, Do you really think I meant it when I said to Richard only Men had to be baptised to enter heaven. Holy Smokes.

I mean please if I believed that for a moment why would I be one here proving that infants could be baptised.

Back in the thread you will read where I showed proof that infants could indeed be baptised because Baptism replaced circumcision.

In case you do not know they meant the same Exact things. Now if a baby could be circumcised without believing and accepting Jesus Christ as you say, how were they circum. back then. Same meaning Circ, Baptism. I asked you good friend Richard and he never responded. Maybe you could answer it for me.

I think like everyone else here though its going to be a Long wait

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6664855:

Esdra;6664843:

Hope you get your answer quicker then I. I asked them to prove it weeks ago

Nope…they can’t

 

[prodromos]

No. Catholics baptize infants because this practice was handed down to us from the Apostles.

So was the chrismating of baptised infants and their receiving of Holy Communion. Why is the Baptist practise of primarily only baptising adults who can confess their faith any different from the Latin rite practise of barring infants from receiving Holy Communion until they reach an ‘age of reason’?

It is not possible for any human of any age to “achieve” spiritual regeneration. It is a free gift of God that is worked in our heart by the HS. It is the “circumcision made without hands” (by the HS).

Indeed, so why are infants excluded from Holy Communion in the Latin rite?

 

[SirThomasMore]

No. Catholics baptize infants because this practice was handed down to us from the Apostles.

Ah, another person who believes infants are not part of the household…

 

[jlhargus]

So was the chrismating of baptised infants and their receiving of Holy Communion. Why is the Baptist practise of primarily only baptising adults who can confess their faith any different from the Latin rite practise of barring infants from receiving Holy Communion until they reach an ‘age of reason’?

JL: The difference is baptism regenerates the soul with the indwelling Holy Spirit, restoring what Adam lost for humanity. Uniting the baptized to Christ as a child of God and member of the people of God the body of Christ.

Indeed, so why are infants excluded from Holy Communion in the Latin rite?

JL: Infants are excluded from communion simply because the Church wants them to understand fully what they are receiving, it is a discipline not a doctrine.

 

[Nicea325]

guanophore;6668036:

No. Catholics baptize infants because this practice was handed down to us from the Apostles.

Ah, another person who believes infants are not part of the household…

Does not matter,if they say infants are not part of a household.Can those opponents provide historical evidence where infants were NOT considered part of the family unit?

family unit - primary social group; parents and children.

When did Jews exclude infants from the household?

 

[prodromos]

JL: Infants are excluded from communion simply because the Church wants them to understand fully what they are receiving, it is a discipline not a doctrine.

We are going to starve you until you understand what food is and why it is necessary for you to eat. That probably makes sense to the people who wear white coats with buttons on the back and really long sleeves. Seriously, do you hear what you are saying?

Can you honestly say that you understand fully what you are receiving? I know I can’t.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

In case you do not know they meant the same Exact things. Now if a baby could be circumcised without believing and accepting Jesus Christ as you say, how were they circum. back then. Same meaning Circ, Baptism. I asked you good friend Richard and he never responded. Maybe you could answer it for me.

I think like everyone else here though its going to be a Long wait

Up to your old tricks again I see rinnie. Remember this from this thread.

Ok, let’s examine this a little closer. Who chose the Jews to be “The Chosen People”. Of coarse it was God. Now, this was a commandment of God. God tells Abram that through him all nations will be blessed.Gen 12. This of coarse is a reference to His plan of salvation. Manifest in Jesus Christ. This was God’s decision. There is no faith involved on the part of the people and God in order to identify His chosen people COMMANDS that they be cicumcised.
Ok, fast forward to Jesus time
Jn.3:3Jesus 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.

What Jesus is saying here is that a man an adult of the human race (mankind)must choose to be born again so that he can enter the Kingdom. So, just as circumcision is an outward sign of God’s choice of His people.
Gen.17
10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Baptism becomes the outward sign of our choice to be one of God’s people.
This choice is a matter of faith and cannot be entered into by an infant.

This is the cicumcision done without hands. In other words it is our choice.

 

[UtSuShImI]

We are going to starve you until you understand what food is and why it is necessary for you to eat. That probably makes sense to the people who wear white coats with buttons on the back and really long sleeves. Seriously, do you hear what you are saying?

Can you honestly say that you understand fully what you are receiving? I know I can’t.

This is not the same case as baptism.
You will go hungry again right?
Food is not permanent. Baptism is.
Why should infants/children(not in the age of reason) be baptized when they don’t know what they are doing?
A good example is blaming a child something he didn’t know was wrong.
A baby hitting someone with a rattle. Can you blame him?
Where in the Bible did you read that children(not in the age of reason) will go to hell if they didn’t know Christ?