Yet another Infant Baptism proof - from St. Paul

[Randy_Carson]

What Paul was trying to say in this scripture is this If the jailer confessed the Lord Jesus christ he would be saved but he was then required to carry that plan of salvation to his family so that they too could be saved. To baptise someone who is not yet confessed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is only making a dry sinner wet.

No.

It’s okay to baptize infants and bring them into the New Covenant…God is all for that.

 

[NotWorthy]

Maybe this will help. A few “catholic” doctrines: # “It is difficult to give strict proof from the scriptures in favor of it. [infant baptism]” (Catholic Dictionary, p. 61).

That’s cool. It’s even more difficult to give strict proof from the Scriptures that forbid it.

“Ecclesiastical custom with regard to the administration of Baptism has undergone a change in the course of history. Whereas the early Church baptized adults only, the baptism of children soon became the usual practice.” (Sanford, Alexander E., MD, Pastoral Medicine: Handbook for the Catholic Clergy, 1904, p 32-33)​

This is incorrect. There are gravesites in the Catechombs in Rome that show kids being baptized as infants in the first century.

“Where in the fourth and fifth centuries the doctrine of original sin became better known, the practice of infant baptism progressed rapidly.” (Legislation on the Sacraments in the New Code of Canon Law, p. 72).​

So the Church explained it better, word traveled more openly due to lack of persecutions, and people were better catechized on the need for infant baptism. Good point!!!

Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants in the Council Of Mela in 416 AD. … so what happened before 416 AD? It wasn’t practiced universally. If it was, then why bring it up?​

You might want to show me where it says it. This has been confused quite often and I think non-Catholics have often mis-represented this council’s teachings (innocently, of course!).