Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[Dokimas]

So where’s this found in the Bible, that you have to base doctrines on more than one verse?

I think a careful reading of what Dyluck said and I repeated is that making a doctrine out of one verse only that seems to contradict the rest of the Bible is not wise.​

We’ve agreed in the past that not all understandings of the Bible are spelled out specifically in the Bible: like the term ‘Trinity’.

 

[Nicea325]

I apologize for keeping you off topic. Sorry.

My baptism: As adult believer; immersed, in a swimming pool. Compared to Jesus: 2 out of 4.

CC baptism: infant, sprinkling, in church. Compared to Jesus: 0 out of 3

Since both are found in the Bible, they are both correct.

Your baptism: 1 out of 4, Jesus was baptized at river,not a swimming pool and he never said full immersion is the only method.

CC baptism: infants,plus all other ages,pouring,FULL IMMERSION,sprinkling,in church and outside (read history). Compared to Jesus: 4 out of 4.

Since neither Jesus or the Apostles stated ONLY immersion is valid,it is false to assume that is the only method.

Tell me Dokimas,what happened to the thousands who were not near a body of water for full immersion and were baptized in the two other methods? Valid or invalid and mind you this happened for centuries.

 

[Dokimas]

What verse tells you that you have to get 2 out of 4 correct?

Jesus was baptized as an adult and He was immersed.

 

[Nicea325]

Jesus was baptized as an adult and He was immersed.

Yeah and I am sure thousands of others were not adults of ‘age of reason’ and not immersed. Still valid!

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus was baptized as an adult and He was immersed.

So what verse says you’re supposed to get 2 out of 4?

Incidentally, he was baptized by his cousin. Were you baptized by your cousin?

And the Holy Spirit appeared afterwards…did that happen at yours?

And it was in a specific month. Do you know what month? Was yours in that month?

And it was on a specific day. Do you know what day? Was yours on that day?

And he was wearing clothing that had no synthetic fibers. Were you baptized in all natural clothing?

Looks like your statistical alikeness to Jesus’ baptism is rapidly diminishing!

 

[Dokimas]

Your baptism: 1 out of 4, Jesus was baptized at river,not a swimming pool.

CC baptism: infants,plus all other ages,pouring,FULL IMMERSION,sprinkling,in church and outside (read history). Compared to Jesus: 4 out of 4.

Since neither Jesus or the Apostles stated ONLY immersion is valid,it is false to assume that is the only method.

Tell me Dokimas,what happened to the thousands who were not near a body of water for full immersion and were baptized in the two other methods? Valid or invalid and mind you this happened for centuries.

Jesus was adult and immersed. 2 out of 4.

Do infants get rebaptized? How many catholics were baptized as an infant? If the answer to the first question is that the GREAT majority don’t get immersed as an adult then for all those 0 out of 3.

I have no problem with adults getting ‘sprinkled’, it’s infant baptism that we were looking at and not finding any reference in the Bible to it. Some here keep asking were to find our Bible understanding. You don’t have a GOOD verse or verses for infant baptism.

 

[Dokimas]

So what verse says you’re supposed to get 2 out of 4?

Incidentally, he was baptized by his cousin. Were you baptized by your cousin?

And the Holy Spirit appeared afterwards…did that happen at yours?

And it was in a specific month. Do you know what month? Was yours in that month?

And it was on a specific day. Do you know what day? Was yours on that day?

And he was wearing clothing that had no synthetic fibers. Were you baptized in all natural clothing?

Looks like your statistical alikeness to Jesus’ baptism is rapidly diminishing!

If you want to make a game out of this then …

How’s your 0% looking compared to my %?

 

[Dokimas]

Yeah and I am sure thousands of others were not adults of ‘age of reason’ and not immersed. Still valid!

I’d agree. That’s not really the point, is it? The point is that Jesus made His own choice. Infants can’t.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

This has been quite an exchange between you and PRmanager… So, hopefully, I won’t be consdidered interrupting… But, let’s see what really is involved here…

Jesus was adult and immersed. 2 out of 4.

Do infants get rebaptized? How many catholics were baptized as an infant? If the answer to the first question is that the GREAT majority don’t get immersed as an adult then for all those 0 out of 3.

I have no problem with adults getting ‘sprinkled’, it’s infant baptism that we were looking at and not finding any reference in the Bible to it. Some here keep asking were to find our Bible understanding. You don’t have a GOOD verse or verses for infant baptism.

Let’s start at the beginning, Dokimas,
there are only three recorded accounts of the Baptism of Jesus: Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22 - so, let’s see what they actually say:

Matthew 3:13
Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him.
14
John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?”
15
Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him.
16
After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened (for him), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (and) coming upon him.
17
And a voice came from the heavens, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

No evidence here in Matthew of immersion. Christ could have stepped into the river and been baptized adn then stepped out, gone into the river up to his ankles, or mid-calf, or knees, waist… or been immersed. There is just nothing here to say ONLY IMMERSION.

Mark 1:9-11
9
It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John.
10
On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him.
11
And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

No evidence here in Mark of immersion. Christ could have stepped into the river and been baptized adn then stepped out, gone into the river up to his ankles, or mid-calf, or knees, waist… or been immersed. There is just nothing here to say ONLY IMMERSION.

Luke 3:21-22
21
After all the people had been baptized and Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, heaven was opened
22
and the holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

And, at the risk of being tedious… there is No evidence here in Luke of immersion. Christ could have stepped into the river and been baptized adn then stepped out, gone into the river up to his ankles, or mid-calf, or knees, waist… or been immersed. There is just nothing here to say ONLY IMMERSION.

So, IMO, while immersion is not specifically stated, it could have happened that way … and of equal probablility, Jesus’ baptism could have happened in the Jordan some other way. I really do not see what your basis is for insisting that immersion is the only way - and then condemning other methods. Everything here is scriptural. Any reading of immersion only is actually reading into what was actually written.

God bless

 

[Dokimas]

Hi, Dokimas,

This has been quite an exchange between you and PRmanager… So, hopefully, I won’t be consdidered interrupting… But, let’s see what really is involved here…

Let’s start at the beginning, Dokimas,
there are only three recorded accounts of the Baptism of Jesus: Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22 - so, let’s see what they actually say:

Matthew 3:13
Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him.
14
John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?”
15
Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him.
16
After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened (for him), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (and) coming upon him.
17
And a voice came from the heavens, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

No evidence here in Matthew of immersion. Christ could have stepped into the river and been baptized adn then stepped out, gone into the river up to his ankles, or mid-calf, or knees, waist… or been immersed. There is just nothing here to say ONLY IMMERSION.

Mark 1:9-11
9
It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John.
10
On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him.
11
And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

No evidence here in Mark of immersion. Christ could have stepped into the river and been baptized adn then stepped out, gone into the river up to his ankles, or mid-calf, or knees, waist… or been immersed. There is just nothing here to say ONLY IMMERSION.

Luke 3:21-22
21
After all the people had been baptized and Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, heaven was opened
22
and the holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

And, at the risk of being tedious… there is No evidence here in Luke of immersion. Christ could have stepped into the river and been baptized adn then stepped out, gone into the river up to his ankles, or mid-calf, or knees, waist… or been immersed. There is just nothing here to say ONLY IMMERSION.

So, IMO, while immersion is not specifically stated, it could have happened that way … and of equal probablility, Jesus’ baptism could have happened in the Jordan some other way. I really do not see what your basis is for insisting that immersion is the only way - and then condemning other methods. Everything here is scriptural. Any reading of immersion only is actually reading into what was actually written.

God bless

Very good point. It did occur to me as well. What does ST tell you?

Now do you want to comment on the point of my discussion about infant baptism. You seem to have a real grasp of the Bible. What does it say about baptism?

 

[dyluck]

PRmerger said:

dyluck responded with these verses:

To which all Catholics respond with a hearty “Amen!”

However,*** not a single verse*** says what you were asked to provide: something which says this:
“if it does not line up with the rest of scripture then, perhaps, you are taking the 1 verse out of context.” Not even close!

I find it quite curious how liberal you are in applying Scriptures to your paradigm–you can say, “well, it doesn’t exactly say that you have to have another Scripture verse to support your 1 verse”…but look at all these verses…

Yet you are adamantine about having to find the word “assumption” or “purgatory” in the Bible.

Quite curious indeed!

Firstly, I believe one of you said that you can add to cannon. that the church can add to the law of God… Hence those passages which says you cannot nor can anyone.

Anyway I don’t use the word “assumption” but perhaps “rapture” or “caught up” although nether words are in the bible. Obviously the word represents an event. I don’t understand why you insist on patronizing me

Purgatory is a load. Even in 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 there is no clear evidence of this. Yet you seem to get down on me for the verses I provide which, at in the least, make some sense to my point.

Since I must be in your guy’s court (about doctrine and faith). Since you concider the aphorchapha sacred and explain these passages to me:

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish…and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

Please explain the topics of these verses, I ask and implore you to provide the key doctrines in them.

Finally 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Test everything.” (along with a few other warnings and comands in that passage)
And if you say checking 1 passage against another for proper interpertaion and context is not part of the statmeent above, then im done wiht this conversation. You know full well you need to back up huge doctrine with more then just 1 verse.

 

[PRmerger]

So what verse says you’re supposed to get 2 out of 4?

Incidentally, he was baptized by his cousin. Were you baptized by your cousin?

And the Holy Spirit appeared afterwards…did that happen at yours?

And it was in a specific month. Do you know what month? Was yours in that month?

And it was on a specific day. Do you know what day? Was yours on that day?

And he was wearing clothing that had no synthetic fibers. Were you baptized in all natural clothing?

Looks like your statistical alikeness to Jesus’ baptism is rapidly diminishing!

Ooooh! I’m having so much fun with this!

Were you wearing sandals?

Did you eat fish before you were baptized?

Did your beard drip water from the Jordan afterwards?

Did you celebrate by eating on the floor, reclining at a table like Jesus did?

Looks like your statistics are getting down to the 0.3% level now!

 

[PRmerger]

Firstly, I believe one of you said that you can add to cannon. that the church can add to the law of God… Hence those passages which says you cannot nor can anyone.

Nope. Not a single Catholic on this forum has said that you can “add to the canon”.

:whacky:

If you are talking about Sacred Tradition, then if you accept the Bible you accept Sacred Tradition as well. For Scripture is Sacred Tradition that’s been written down.

Purgatory is a load. Even in 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 there is no clear evidence of this. Yet you seem to get down on me for the verses I provide which, at in the least, make some sense to my point.

It’s quite peculiar how liberal you are with verses which “support” your doctrine–and they don’t even have a single word that corresponds to your doctrine–yet won’t assign the same liberality to Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

Finally 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Test everything.” (along with a few other warnings and comands in that passage)
And if you say checking 1 passage against another for proper interpertaion and context is not part of the statmeent above, then im done wiht this conversation. You know full well you need to back up huge doctrine with more then just 1 verse.

Test everything? Against another verse in Scripture? Is that what it says, dyluck?

And of course you must back up huge doctrine with more than just 1 verse–that’s a very Catholic point of view, but it’s just not supported by Scripture! You believe a Catholic thing that’s not in the Bible!

 

[PRmerger]

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Please explain the topics of these verses, I ask and implore you to provide the key doctrines in them.

There is no Eccl 3:30. It only goes up to v 22.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

While this appears to be a simply question, the answer is not easy. It really requires a serious foundation. But, since you asked … let’s get started.

Very good point. It did occur to me as well. What does ST tell you?

Now do you want to comment on the point of my discussion about infant baptism. You seem to have a real grasp of the Bible. What does it say about baptism?

Christ firmly established the need for each of us to be baptized. But, remember Christ spoke to the old man Nicodemus, and except for one notable instance, Christ only had dealings with adults. So, it is pretty easy to guess that only adults are involved in the process of needing baptism. But, this is really an assumption based on some - but, not all - of the facts.

So, since Adam and Eve freely chose to disobey God - they were punished, and that punishment has been passed on to each of us ("…sweat of your brow… pain in childbirth… and death") As Catholics, we believe that baptism cleanses us from the stain of Original Sin - but, the effects (some of them listed above) remain with each of us humans. Now, hang onto that as a concept…

As Catholics, we believe that Baptism makes us Children of God and Heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who are not baptized do not have this guarantee - and, what
God chooses to do with those folks is really God’s business.

To use an analogy… If an infant were all wrapped up, put in a basket, with a note pinned to the blanket and left on your doorstep (just bear with me on this … we will not involved Child Protective Serivces in this flight of imagination…) and you found it… it would not be an heir to your estate. If however, you adopt this infant - then it would be an heir. What would happen, however, if you did not adopt - but, told yourself you would adopt the child but, just never got around to it… but you did allow the infant to grow up under your roof? Well, not much - the child would look at the fine house - but, know it was not his. If you were to die … this child would inherit NOTHING. If you were to compare this baptism then why would anyone want to endanger their child’s eternal future by delaying baptism until some arbitrary time (such as wehn they can decide for themselves). The infant in my above analogy could not ask for any inheritance (he’s an infant and doesn’t know anything - except he needs to be cared for!) for he is not an heir.

Now…with all of this rambling of mine … the bottom line is that nowhere in the bible is there an age requirement for baptism. While confessing Christ as Lord prior to baptism is certainly valid for an adult - how do you handle an infant? In mere human society - infants are covered with insurnace and to be beneficiaries in the eyes of the state if both parents are deceased. we know that Paul baptized entire households - so, how can we logically and totally exclude infants and children from baptism where there is real room to include them.

There is nothing in the Bible that specifically includes infants or excludes infants and children from baptism. Recalling Christ’s words, “Suffer the little children to come to Me.” why would anyone really want to exclude them.

I hope this helps.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Tobit 12:8-9 is a great verse! Jesus refers to it in great detail on his Sermon on the Mount! (Matt 6).

I have no opinion on v.17 "But Raphael said to them: “No need to fear; you are safe. Thank God now and forever.” . One can have multiple viewpoints on this.

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish…and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

That is not Tobit 6:5-8

And dyluck, just so you know,*** it’s not considered honest*** to cut and paste something from another website without giving proper credit.

Did you even look up these verses before you cut and pasted from some bizarre website?

 

[PRmerger]

Tobit 12:8-9 is a great verse! Jesus refers to it in great detail on his Sermon on the Mount! (Matt 6).

I have no opinion on v.17 "But Raphael said to them: “No need to fear; you are safe. Thank God now and forever.” One can have multiple viewpoints on this.

That is not Tobit 6:5-8

And dyluck, just so you know,*** it’s not considered honest*** to cut and paste something from another website without giving proper credit.

Did you even look these verses up before you cut and pasted from someone else’s website?

 

[Nicea325]

Jesus was adult and immersed. 2 out of 4.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

You know, sometimes ‘sleeping’ on an issue helps my brain come up with other approaches to a topic. I still do not know what “ST” is…so, I am going to have to ask you about that, but I did come up with another idea last night. Let me share the product of last night’s slumber …

Very good point. It did occur to me as well. What does ST tell you?

Now do you want to comment on the point of my discussion about infant baptism. You seem to have a real grasp of the Bible. What does it say about baptism?

One of the more interesting aspcts of St. Paul’s life (at least in my opinion) is how he could relate to different groups of people in order to win them over for Christ. Take a look at Philippians 3:5-7 (this will also give you a chance to compare different translations…)

5
Circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, in observance of the law a Pharisee,
6
in zeal I persecuted the church, in righteousness based on the law I was blameless.
7
(But) whatever gains I had, these I have come to consider a loss because of Christ.

So, here is St. Paul telling his readers that he was special - even from birth - and, here are items he had absolutely no control over (born of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, of great parents who were observant Jews - and look what happens when new-born Saul is 8 days old - he is personally ushered into the role of being a Jew by being circmucised.) Now, none of his genetic or parental prestige would have accounted to him for much if he was not circumcised according to the Law.

Not to sound silly about this, but there was no ‘altar call’ back then for those who stood up for Moses and believed in the 10 Commandments (or, whatever an OT version of that would be). But, without stretching any facts, we can see that God obviously wanted infants brought into the ranks of the Chosen People - there was no delay until these infants could grow up and could make up their own minds. Considering what was being required (essentially, a surgical procedure without anesthesia) this was a tall order for one so young.

Christ had a very soft spot in His Sacred Heart for children. It would just be inconsistent for Him to scold the Apostles for keeping children away from Him - yet condone the prohibition of infant baptism when, should that child die, they would not be considered a Child of God and an Heir to the Kingdom of Heaven. (As far as I am concerned, God will sort all this out on the Last Day… but our responsibility is do all we can so that more people go to Heaven. His Will be done!)

As Jewish parents - they had the responsibility to bring their child up as a Jew from the very beginning. Would you expect Christian parents to have less responsibility? Combine this with there being NO BIBLICAL STATEMENT prohibiting infant baptism, the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) was left with a moral decision. Infants can’t stand up for Christ - they can’t even stand! But, there is no doubt that they have immortal souls. Following the precedent given by God to the Jews (infant circumcision) the move is to baptize infants. My parents had me baptized as an infant - and, I am very happy about that to this day!

To my way of thinking, arguing other-wise is simply to argue for a tradition of men.

God bless