Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[dyluck]

I like your insurance analogy. That’s why I believe children are ‘grandfathered’ in by the love and grace of God without baptism until they can deside for themselves.

Also, of the thousands that were baptized in the NT, only 5 households are mentioned where all were baptized. The odds are very good that those 5 households did not have children at the time of the baptism.

Dokimas, can I interject/ support you here for a sec. Lets say, by chance, that baptism by water or a lack of baptism by water or any acts of man had an impact on one’s ability to be saved.
Wouldn’t then works be part of our salvation?

Would God, the creator of this universe, require that we have caviets to salvation if we are too young, or converted at the last minute before one died and was unble to be water baptized?

I know the bible says that we must be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven; however, Jesus makes this deciaration. My question is, how is it that Jesus baptizes? by water or by spirit? Didn’t John the baptist not say “there is one who is coming that baptizes with the holy spirit / fire”. Is not the baptism of the holy spirit not a change of one’s nature, death to sinful nature and a resurection of a new man?

If it is spirit then how can we hold claim to when and if this occurs?

I believe that baptism by water is a public declairation of what God already did which was regenerated you / Romans 6. I believe the baptism that has to do with salvation is the spiritual one (the regeneration part).

Baptism by water cannot be a piece of requirement of salvation because the bible implicitly says that we cannot boast of our own works.

 

[Dokimas]

But we do not go by Your Opinion or even mine for that matter. Its God’s opinion!

And God PROMISED the CC the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church so no mistakes happen. So you are wrong. The Catholic Church does have the authority to teach and God send the advocate the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. So if you feel that no authority was given to the Apostles then you must not agree with Gods teaching then.

Jesus said ALL authority on heaven and earth was given to me. and I know give it to you. He was talking to the Apostles. I understand you reject this authority but we as Catholic believe what Jesus said.

Wrong: I don’t reject the apostles authority. I disagree with your understanding of what that means. Quite a big difference.

 

[dyluck]

But we do not go by Your Opinion or even mine for that matter. Its God’s opinion!

And God PROMISED the CC the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church so no mistakes happen. So you are wrong. The Catholic Church does have the authority to teach and God send the advocate the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. So if you feel that no authority was given to the Apostles then you must not agree with Gods teaching then.

Jesus said ALL authority on heaven and earth was given to me. and I know give it to you. He was talking to the Apostles. I understand you reject this authority but we as Catholic believe what Jesus said.

rinnie, I struggle a little with the segregation of the CC to the direction of God’s power and authority. Basically, in a sense, I get the feeling that CC do not believe Protestants are in line of salvation or authroity under of Jesus.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, can I interject/ support you here for a sec. Lets say, by chance, that baptism by water or a lack of baptism by water or any acts of man had an impact on one’s ability to be saved.
Wouldn’t then works be part of our salvation?

Would God, the creator of this universe, require that we have caviets to salvation if we are too young, or converted at the last minute before one died and was unble to be water baptized?

I know the bible says that we must be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven; however, Jesus makes this deciaration. My question is, how is it that Jesus baptizes? by water or by spirit? Didn’t John the baptist not say “there is one who is coming that baptizes with the holy spirit / fire”. Is not the baptism of the holy spirit not a change of one’s nature, death to sinful nature and a resurection of a new man?

If it is spirit then how can we hold claim to when and if this occurs?

I believe that baptism by water is a public declairation of what God already did which was regenerated you / Romans 6. I believe the baptism that has to do with salvation is the spiritual one (the regeneration part).

Baptism by water cannot be a piece of requirement of salvation because the bible implicitly says that we cannot boast of our own works.

Thank you. I think your points help.

 

[Nicea325]

Of the thousands of baptisms in the NT, the odds that there are no young children in the 5 households mentioned in the NT as being baptized, in quite high.

Could you show me any baptism in the NT where some sort of repentance (change of mind/a turning) does NOT take place first?

The second part of your question has been answered in the past. The first baptized were adults and why? Because there were no ‘cradle’ Christians.However,scripture does not claim it is the golden rule: only adults capable of making a decision and only immersed.

And can you show me any baptism in the NT an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized **only **upon making a “decision for Christ?”

OUCH! To much to swallow…eh-Dokimas? After posting the following,you still insist it is not valid or never happened? For crying out Dokimas,I gave a direct reference from a well known Protestant Study Bible.

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. (1 Cor.1:16) NKJV

New King James Study Bible:

Occasionally the **ENTIRE FAMILY **of a NEW convert would be BAPTIZED,which may have signified the person’s desire to consecrate all (family) that he had to Christ.

WHAT PART DO YOU NOT WANT TO ACCEPT?

If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Again,Dokimas burden of proof is on you to show that historically speaking the Jews did not include infants as part of the household. Good luck!

 

[dyluck]

Wooooooooooooooooow! Hold on there a minute, Dyluck. What kind of apology is this - start out good and then slam the recipient? That is not how things are properly done - anywhere.

Now, if you don’t want to read Tobit, fine. Just leave it alone. If nothing else, this will give you more time to prepare your response(s) to the posts I have given you that challenge the position you have taken.

Honestly, I am awaiting your response.

God bless

Hey just shortened your quote there.

Ok, the response was because I was indeed upset that dealing with PR is like walking into a room with 3 walls turning around and the fourth just closed behind you.
I feel a level of respect when dealing with you which is nice.
PR basically mentioned that doctrine can come out of a verse, not necissairly backed up by other parts of the bible to understand it further. Then I said you can’t do that. Then when I quoted a verse that simply says “test everything” with a period at the end of it which is pretty straight forward IMO. I cant take what you say verbatum, change my religion and move on, I have to test what you say with scripture. right? He just flipped it back on me and said that I’m now basing everyting off 1 verse and then disregarded the verse by saying “where does is specifically says to test scripture with scripture” which is what I was originally saying to him. something along those lines.

anyway moving on from that

Please understand my point in tobit. The act of driving away spirits with nasty insense is a practice you see in shaman rituals. I don’t mean to offend. Drugs for health are different then dealing with driving out spirits.
There was a reason that these books were removed. There was much debate about their authenticity to inspired scripture for many many centuries. Luthar and the agreeance of protestants are that the words in these books don’t match the God of the Hebrew bible. There seems to be conflict of interest in there yah know? Now, I admit, I have only read a few books so don’t know fully about them to say anything, nor can I impose on myself the ability of theology to say anything; however, I did sence a difference in the God of the bible and the God portrayed in parts of those books. I dont’ discredit their authenticity just their God breathedness (if thats a word )

 

[Dokimas]

:dancing:

The second part of your question has been answered in the past. The first baptized were adults and why? Because there were no ‘cradle’ Christians.However,scripture does not claim it is the golden rule: only adults capable of making a decision and only immersed.

And can you show me any baptism in the NT an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized **only **upon making a “decision for Christ?”

OUCH! To much to swallow…eh-Dokimas? After posting the following,you still insist it is not valid or never happened? For crying out Dokimas,I gave a direct reference from a well known Protestant Study Bible.

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. (1 Cor.1:16) NKJV

New King James Study Bible:

Occasionally the **ENTIRE FAMILY **of a NEW convert would be BAPTIZED,which may have signified the person’s desire to consecrate all (family) that he had to Christ.

WHAT PART DO YOU NOT WANT TO ACCEPT?

If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Again,Dokimas burden of proof is on you to show that historically speaking the Jews did not include infants as part of the household. Good luck!

Nice, you got me. Nice job. You win. :dancing:

 

[PRmerger]

PR I truly and deeply appologize for taking a quote from Tobit out of someone elses site. Actually I realized after that that particular site is horrible as it really cuts down some very good teachers.

Apology accepted.

A Then, before you sleep together, first stand up, both of you, and pray. Ask the Lord of heaven to grant you his grace and protection.

Beautiful!! LOVE this!

DH and I do this every night! (The “stand up” part is, of course, metaphorical).

Anyway, I believe we are getting nowhere on this.
The above verse clearly shows acts of Witchcraft linking to Godly people

Huh? Witchcraft?

but im not going to persue this any further. I believe at the end of the day, even my reference to biblical “Test Everything.”.

Amen!

Then say “well where does it say directly to test scripture with scripture”.

Exactly. It says it NOWHERE in Scripture.

Perhaps I am but honestly you clearly do not want to listen to even an ounce of what I am saying.

That’s not true at all. I am enjoying this discourse immensely.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PRmerger,

I have been meaning to ask you…

Is that the same as a **significance level **of p< 0.003?

Sorry… I could not resist…

I just LOVE math–and statistics, too!

Except I forgot what the “p-value” meant and had to look it up again!

 

[PRmerger]

That’s why I believe children are ‘grandfathered’ in by the love and grace of God without baptism until they can deside for themselves.

OhmyGOSH, Doki! "Grandfathered"? That’s definitely not a term found in the Bible!

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
The second part of your question has been answered in the past. The first baptized were adults and why? Because there were no ‘cradle’ Christians.However,scripture does not claim it is the golden rule: only adults capable of making a decision and only immersed.

And can you show me any baptism in the NT an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ?”

OUCH! To much to swallow…eh-Dokimas? After posting the following,you still insist it is not valid or never happened? For crying out Dokimas,I gave a direct reference from a well known Protestant Study Bible.

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. (1 Cor.1:16) NKJV

New King James Study Bible:

Occasionally the ENTIRE FAMILY of a NEW convert would be BAPTIZED,which may have signified the person’s desire to consecrate all (family) that he had to Christ.

WHAT PART DO YOU NOT WANT TO ACCEPT?

If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Again,Dokimas burden of proof is on you to show that historically speaking the Jews did not include infants as part of the household. Good luck!

Nice, you got me. Nice job. You win.

Dokimas,it is not about winning or losing. I am not here to get bragging rights. I am here to correct profound misunderstandings against infant baptisms. It is a matter of accepting of what is presented in scripture and early church writings.

If your congregation only baptizes adults who make a “decision” to accept Jesus and full immersion, and use the Trinitarian Formula,then so be it…it is still valid. The RCC baptized scores of adults in the same method during the Easter Vigil;however, it also baptizes infants & ,young children in full immersion,sprinkling and pouring and all valid. The key is the formula: Trinitarian. This was hammered out centuries ago and it amazes me how so many today refuse to accept it when it is all well documented in ancient sources.

 

[PRmerger]

Baptism by water cannot be a piece of requirement of salvation because the bible implicitly says that we cannot boast of our own works.

And clearly, Catholics baptizing infants shows that we believe God’s salvation is totally and completely a gift–for what work could this cute little babe do to “earn” his salvation? It is offered even to infants who can do no work to “earn” his salvation.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, the response was because I was indeed upset that dealing with PR is like walking into a room with 3 walls turning around and the fourth just closed behind you.

What? I have a feeling I am being insulted…

I think I’ll take it that you get discombobulated with my arguments because you have no response.

So, no offense taken!

 

[PRmerger]

PR basically mentioned that doctrine can come out of a verse, not necissairly backed up by other parts of the bible to understand it further.

Absolutely not. I never said that.

In fact, I said the contrary, right here:

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!

YOU are supporting a* Catholic* point of view, but it’s not one that you can find in Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Nice, you got me. Nice job. You win. :dancing:

Doki, sarcasm is the protest of those who are weak.

 

[Dokimas]

Doki, sarcasm is the protest of those who are weak.

Or the extremely frustrated at the comments that are not called for.

Why then do you like picking on the weak? Easy pickin’s?

 

[PRmerger]

Or the extremely frustrated at the comments that are not called for.

Why then do you like picking on the weak? Easy pickin’s?

I never ever pick on the weak.

 

[Dokimas]

I never ever pick on the weak.

Time to get back on the topic. We’ll just have to disagree.

 

[PRmerger]

Time to get back on the topic. We’ll just have to disagree.

You really think I’ve been picking on you?

I told you already, I have been your biggest defender.

 

[Dokimas]

You really think I’ve been picking on you?

I told you already, I have been your biggest defender.

Thanks.