Yet another Infant Baptism proof - from St. Paul

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe in John Chapter 4 verse 1 it says that Jesus did not baptize anyone. Only his desciples did.

Just wondering, is there an explicit description of Christ or his apostles baptizing a woman in the bible?

If not, then I guess, by your logic, we should conclude that women should not be baptized either?

Chuck
billbush said:
You are missing the point on both the Job passage and the Psalms passage.

Job is lamenting his condition; him life, at this point, was full of trouble.

David is confessing the depravity he saw in his life due to the sin he had committed and was not asking God to forgive him of … his sin with Bathsheba and having her husband killed. I am sure he felt at this point of his life that because of the thing he had done, he must have been born sinful!

As for your NT references, none say anything anout Christ baptizing one child … not one! Yes, as baptized we must become like children, PURE in the eyes of God!
Click to expand...
 
Which would be why an infant is incapable of sin. The only sin they could possibly have would be the stain of “original sin” passed on to them from their parrents.

And we wouldn’t want to remove the stain why?

Chuck
billbush said:
No Maria, children do not have understanding. One very specific child had understanding! You cannot say that because John leaped that all unborn children have the same sort of understanding.

Yes, an infant has some very basic “understanding” due to conditioning but is an infant able to reason, can an infant understand, confess, repent (of what)?

A child or someone of some diminished mental capacity is not held to the same standard as the mature or those who have matured to the point of understanding sin.
Click to expand...
 
Salamander said:
I see your point too Randy. My understanding is that “much water” was used in the baptism of believers, not a little. Why else would baptismal (baptistries) be located in the caves and homes of believers in the First Century? I just can’t believe that we have an example that would include pouring as cleansing the whole body.
Click to expand...
But we DO have instruction from the first century on how baptism is to be administered. The Didache was written ca. 70-100 AD, when the first generation of Chirstian disciples, including St. John the Apostle, were still alive. While it is not Scripture, it is a contemporary witness to the practice of the Apostolic era. It says:
And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

As you can see, infusion (pouring) was an established form of Baptism in the earliest Church.

Justin
 
billbush said:
Are you trying to say that at this point Christ was baptizing children? I’d say you are inferring much more than is there.
Click to expand...
When you say, “Repent and be baptized” means “Repent and then be baptized,” you’re doing the same thing. When you say, “Believe and be baptized” means “Believe and then be baptized,” you’re doing the same thing. Nothing (either in the Greek or in the English) suggests a chronological progression.

When you say, “The eunuch had to believe before he was baptized,” and you apply that to all people, you’re inferring much more than is there: the eunuch certainly serves as a canonical example of a convert to Christianity, but there’s no reason to suppose that he serves as a canonical example for the children of Christian parents.

The sword cuts both ways: your age-restrictive baptism infers just as much more than is there as our infant baptism does. But we do know this: the Church has always baptized infants. We know that Jesus did not hesitate to bless infants, and we know that Peter told those at Pentecost, “The promise is to you and your children and to all who are far off” (a verse you conveniently left out of your quotation above :))

Jeremy
 
Salamander said:
Secondly, Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan river, right? If Jesus had wanted John to pour water over Him, I’m sure there would have been a better location to perform this; say the Temple maybe?

What of the act of the Ethiopian eunuch; he would have used his water bottle I am sure instead of going down “into the water” with Philip. Oh, and he came up out of the water too. 🙂
Click to expand...
Immersion is still the preferred form of baptism. It always has been, for its physical symbolism of death and resurrection. But it’s not the only valid form for baptism.
Salamander said:
I see your point too Randy. My understanding is that “much water” was used in the baptism of believers, not a little.
Click to expand...
In one example, sure. But then, there’s the example of Cornelius. When Peter decided to baptize him, he said, “Can anyone withold water from this man?” He didn’t say, “Can anyone hold this man back from the water?” as one would expect if complete immersion were required and expected. He talked about holding the water back from the man–a reason thing to say if he intended to pour water over Cornelius in order to baptize him.
Why else would baptismal (baptistries) be located in the caves and homes of believers in the First Century?
Click to expand...
Can you provide evidence for the “homes of believers” claim above? It’s my understand that archaeological evidence indicates that very few homes of believers had vessels large enough to immerse an adult.
I just can’t believe that we have an example that would include pouring as cleansing the whole body.
Click to expand...
Peter specifically said that the point of baptism was not the physical cleansing of dirt from the flesh.
When is the last time someone was buried with their feet or head still out of the ground? When Jesus was placed in the tomb, he wasn’t put in there with a foot or hand sticking out. I believe and the scriptures read (not tradition) that it is a burial, just as Paul wrote in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12. It is a burial, a complete covering. 1 Peter 3:21. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Jesus came out of the tomb. We, when baptized (buried), come out of the water.
Click to expand...
Baptism by immersion definitely symbolizes the physical act of burial and resurrection. That’s why we prefer it. But we still have biblical evidence that not all baptism are immersion. The disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit (as they had been told they would) a few days after Jesus ascended into heaven. Three times in Acts 2 we see that the Holy Spirit was poured onto the disciples when they were baptized with it. They weren’t dipped, pluged, or immersed in the Spirit: it was poured out on them.

Jeremy
 
You remind me of the way adults are baptised in our parish. We have a large baptismal font but its only about 2 feet deep.

The catechumen kneels and water is poured over him / her three times.

It’s a beautiful thing to watch.

Chuck
jemfinch said:
Immersion is still the preferred form of baptism. It always has been, for its physical symbolism of death and resurrection. But it’s not the only valid form for baptism.

In one example, sure. But then, there’s the example of Cornelius. When Peter decided to baptize him, he said, “Can anyone withold water from this man?” He didn’t say, “Can anyone hold this man back from the water?” as one would expect if complete immersion were required and expected. He talked about holding the water back from the man–a reason thing to say if he intended to pour water over Cornelius in order to baptize him.

Can you provide evidence for the “homes of believers” claim above? It’s my understand that archaeological evidence indicates that very few homes of believers had vessels large enough to immerse an adult.

Peter specifically said that the point of baptism was not the physical cleansing of dirt from the flesh.

Baptism by immersion definitely symbolizes the physical act of burial and resurrection. That’s why we prefer it. But we still have biblical evidence that not all baptism are immersion. The disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit (as they had been told they would) a few days after Jesus ascended into heaven. Three times in Acts 2 we see that the Holy Spirit was poured onto the disciples when they were baptized with it. They weren’t dipped, pluged, or immersed in the Spirit: it was poured out on them.

Jeremy
Click to expand...
 
billbush said:
As for your NT references, none say anything anout Christ baptizing one child … not one! Yes, as baptized we must become like children, PURE in the eyes of God!
Click to expand...
Are you sure about this? Read Luke, chapter 1. You’ll find John being baptized in the Holy Spirit while still in Ellizabeth’s womb.
 
Chuck, why would Christ have said we needed to become as little children if we were to enter the kingdom of heaven?

Mar 10:13 Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mar 10:15 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Obviously children are innocent, they do not carry my sins or yours! Why would Christ tell us to be like a sinful child?
 
billbush said:
Obviously children are innocent, they do not carry my sins or yours! Why would Christ tell us to be like a sinful child?
Click to expand...
No one said that children carry the sins of adults. No Catholic claims that. But, just as we all are born into sin through Adam, kids are part of that. They inherit the Stain of Original Sin. This is what Baptism removes from infants.
 
Salamander said:
I see your point. But I do not believe that our God is the god of confusion-that is Satan (1 Cor. 14:33). Paul, as God’s servant obeyed Jesus and the Spirit as he was given the power as an Apostle to teach. Since Jesus said that "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be condemned, Mark 16:16" I believe Jesus was talking about those who would “believe”. **Infants, therefore, cannot believe. ** Paul would have known this and he probably would have baptized every infant he came in contact with whose believing parents put them in front of him. Infant baptism was not instituted in the “religious bodies” until 416 A.D. “Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants in the Council Of Mela in 416 AD.” (www.bible.ca)
Click to expand...
I know Salamander is sleeping, and by the time he wakes this will probably be lost in the heap of posting that’s taking place today on this thread - so, would appreciate a response from anyone who holds to Salamander’s interpretation given above.

Since babies cannot believe, does that mean they “shall be condemned” if they die as babies?

If not, where do they go, since they are not among the saved who believe and are baptized? Would appreciate a Scripture passage if the answer is something other than hell.

Nita
 
o.k., then give me one example of an infant or even a small child being baptized! Just ONE!

You can’t! The idea that infants can sin or understand the process of baptism is nonsense!

If you are sincere about your soul and in knowing the truth you better chunk your copy of the catholic catechism in the trash and start studying you bible for yourself!

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

(Edited By Moderator)
 
Again I go back to the verses where Christ tells us we MUST become as children to enter the kingdom heaven. What other proof do you require?

Anyone who is innocent, like an infant is pure, as is seen in the following:

Mat 19:13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mar 10:15 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:17 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Again I ask … what does the Bible say? Not what does a priest tell you, WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY? You are responsible for your soul and you CAN know the truth, you’ve just got to study for yourself!

2Ti 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
 
billbush said:
…
If you are sincere about your soul and in knowing the truth you better chunk your copy of the catholic catechism in the trash and start studying you bible for yourself!

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(Edited By Moderator)
Click to expand...
Hi billbush,

I’ve been studying the Bible for a long, long time. I’ve been in Protestant bible studies, have close Protestant friends, and as a result, I know many of your beliefs and the verses you use to support them. I also know Catholic beliefs and the Scripture and Tradition that supports them. Catholicism is far more comprehensive. We do not pick out only certain verses - for we believe all Scripture is true. When verses appear to contradict each other, the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has sought an understanding that encompasses all of them (for none of them can be false). And when the proper understanding has been formulated, the truth of all the previously difficult passages shines out. (eg. the teaching on the Trinity, two natures in the Incarnation, etc)

By the way, there’s no “bible alone” verse in the Bible to support the Protestant teaching of bible only - so I assume Protestants claim an exemption for the necessity of having that teaching being founded in Scripture. Nor one for private interpretation being the final authority on the meaning of a passage. I’ve often wondered, what do you base those teachings on? Where (or by whom) did the teachings originate? I was never comfortable asking my friends, so it’s nice to have a forum like this where we can put forward such questions. Thanks in advance for your answers.

God bless you,
Nita
 
billbush said:
No Maria, children do not have understanding. One very specific child had understanding!
Click to expand...
Okay. I agree. John was special by the extraordinary gift of God.

Similarly, you don’t mind if we say that one specific woman was herself conceived without sin and remained perpetually virgin all of her life before being assumed into heaven where she reigns as Queen.

Do you? :rolleyes:
 
Hi billbush,

The very passages you quote about “Let the little children come to Me” are the ones Catholics see as showing Jesus wanted them united to Himself. We also believe that it is baptism that effects our union with God. It is in baptism that we are cleansed from Original Sin and the grace of Our Lord’s supernatural life comes into our souls, uniting us to Him.

Nita
 
billbush said:
o.k., then give me one example of an infant or even a small child being baptized! Just ONE!
Click to expand...
Give us an example of anyone other than an adult convert being baptized. Perhaps those brought up in the faith shouldn’t be baptized at all.
The idea that infants can sin or understand the process of baptism is nonsense!
Click to expand...
  1. We don’t believe that infants commit actual sin. We believe that infants contract a state of sinfulness, called original sin, by being born into the line of Adam.
  2. Please explain why it is necessary that a person be able to understand Baptism prior to being adopted into the New Covenant. We don’t limit the grace of God only to those who are able to understand.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Click to expand...
St. Paul does not tell us that scripture is sufficient for doctrine, etc.; he just says that it is profitable.

Justin
 
billbush said:
o.k., then give me one example of an infant or even a small child being baptized! Just ONE!

You can’t! The idea that infants can sin or understand the process of baptism is nonsense!

If you are sincere about your soul and in knowing the truth you better chunk your copy of the catholic catechism in the trash and start studying you bible for yourself!

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(Edited By Moderator)
Click to expand...
Let’s see.
Post #68.
Post #1 (Can you show me where Paul denies the baptism to any children of this household?) Remember, he made the statement without any clue as to the size and the makeup of the household. Households included servants, slaves, and their families.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top