Yet another Infant Baptism proof - from St. Paul

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
billbush said:
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...
Billbush, this posting is part of what makes Catholic Apologia so much fun. On this same thread last night, I got into a discussion with Salamander who claims the OT is outdated and no longer applies (you either missed it or were silent on that part.)
 
1962Missal said:
Give us an example of a woman being baptized.
Click to expand...
Acts 16
13On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
billbush said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Bill, where does it say, “Those who are child-like, but NOT CHILDREN!!!”? Why do you impose this restriction on this sentence?
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!
Click to expand...
Bill, please quit insulting us by declaring WHEN YOU HAVEN’T GOT A CLUE that we do not study ourselves.

That’s rather judgmental of you, if you ask me.
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.
Click to expand...
You’ll have to show us where we’re dividing the truth.

YOU are the one that says Households do NOT included infants.

YOU are the one that declares the adults must be child-like, but children need not apply.

WE are the ones that have not changed our doctrines for over 1900 years! AMEN!!!
 
Please show me one verse in the bible that says NOT to have an infant baptised please.

Chuck
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 if we can re-cap briefly:
  1. Paul said definatively “You and your household will be saved” without checking for infants in the household.
  2. Contrary to what was stated, the Church has been baptizing infants since the first century.
  3. Bill claims that the Kingdom of Heaven is for those who are “child-like” unless they happen to be a “child”. Hmmm…
  4. The Church did not decide at the Council of Mela (in the 4th century) to begin to baptize infants. What did the church teach in these early years?
Working backwards from the Second Council of Mileve in 416 AD, which anathematized all “who deny that new-born infants should be baptized immediately after birth,” we find that the Church tradition of infant baptism was already established at the time of St. Augustine, who successfully opposed the Pelagian denial of original sin by asserting that such a denial would undercut the importance of infant baptism. Hence, we can limit our search for early Patristic support to the pre-Augustinian period. St. Augustine himself stated the belief and practice of his and preceding periods rather clearly: “The infants are brought to church, and if they cannot go there on their own feet, they run with the feet of others … Let no one among you, therefore, murmur strange doctrines. This the Church has always had, and this she has always held; this she received from the faith of the ancients; this she preserves tenaciously to the end.”
Click to expand...
St. Cyprian, speaking on account of his fellow bishops at the Council of Carthage in 253 AD, said to Fidus: “No one agrees with you in your opinion as to what should be done, but we all, on the contrary, judge that to no one born of man was the mercy and the grace of God to be denied.” St. Augustine explains this utterance as follows: “The Blessed Cyprian, not forming any new decree, but maintaining the assured faith of the Church, in order to correct those who held that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, gives it as his own judgment and that of his fellow bishops, that a child can be validly baptized as soon as born.”
Click to expand...
In the east, at about the same time, Origen said: “The Church hath received it as a tradition from the Apostles that infants, too, ought to be baptized.”
Click to expand...
Long before either St. Cyprian or Origen, however, St. Irenaeus of Lyons (around 140 AD) wrote: “Christ came to save all through Himself – all, I say, who through Him are born again in God: infants and little children and boys and young men and old men.”
Click to expand...
Bill and Salamander, the way you guys mis-interpret Church History makes me wonder how you can trust yourselves to interpret the Bible!
 
No Nita, you are woefully wrong!

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.

What does this passage say to you? I don’t see anything in there about “catholic tradition” saving anyone.

If you’ve done the studying you say you’ve done, (Edited By Moderator), you would have already seen the multitude of flaws in the catholic church (Edited By Moderator)!

I hope you will consider your soul and the soul of anyone else before you misguide anyone with tradition of the catholic church being valid! (Edited By Moderator)
 
billbush said:
I hope you will consider your soul and the soul of anyone else before you misguide anyone with tradition of the catholic church being valid!
Click to expand...
I think the consideration for the Salvation of her Soul is what brought our good Nita to the Catholic Church.

Are you saying that one can’t be saved if one is a devout and loyal Catholic? :confused:

As for the rest of your “red herring” post, it just goes to show that you are getting desperate. * “If you can’t beat them on doctrine, change the subject*” - is that what you were taught (or should I say “guided by the Holy Spirit”?).

It might behoove you to stick to the topic. I don’t think the mud slinging is very Christian.
 
billbush said:
No Nita, you are woefully wrong!

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.

What does this passage say to you? I don’t see anything in there about “catholic tradition” saving anyone.

If you’ve done the studying you say you’ve done, which I seriously doubt, you would have already seen the multitude of flaws in the catholic church and the gross hypocracy!

I hope you will consider your soul and the soul of anyone else before you misguide anyone with tradition of the catholic church being valid! I guess the tradition of shielding priests from prosecution is also a meaningful tradition.
Click to expand...
Let’s back up a verse or two, shall we, hoss?

2 Timothy 3:14-16
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (by means of Paul’s oral teaching also known as Tradition), because you know those from whom you learned it (those who taught Timothy were the leaders of the early Church which we now call the Magisterium), 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (which in Timothy’s infancy would have been the Old Testament - but I’ll include the NT, also for our purposes), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only now, after telling Timothy to hang on to the traditions he had learned from authoritative Church leaders do we get some clarification on how scripture is useful) 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Useful? You bet!
Sufficient? That’s not a biblical concept.

Sorry, hoss.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Oh, one more thing…please post your cheap shots and your gripes one topic per thread.

We’ll be waiting. :coffeeread:
 
billbush said:
No Nita, you are woefully wrong!

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.

What does this passage say to you? I don’t see anything in there about “catholic tradition” saving anyone.

If you’ve done the studying you say you’ve done, which I seriously doubt, you would have already seen the multitude of flaws in the catholic church and the gross hypocracy!

I hope you will consider your soul and the soul of anyone else before you misguide anyone with tradition of the catholic church being valid! I guess the tradition of shielding priests from prosecution is also a meaningful tradition.
Click to expand...
Hi billbush,

I thoroughly agree with the 2 Timothy passages. So does the Catholic Church; it’s the Church that determined 2 Timothy should be a part of the canon of Scripture! It speaks of the immense value of Sacred Scripture for doctrine,…and completing us so we are equipped for every good work.

Are you offering that verse as a reply to my request for a Scripture passage that says the “bible alone” is sufficient - the only instructor we need to know God and His will? It certainly doesn’t say that explicitly. I guess I take the passage as it is, without reading anything extra into it. Also, you did not give a verse for private interpretation. Is that because you don’t know of any?
(I know I don’t.)

I’m sorry you doubt my word. What I said is true.

God bless you,
Nita
 
So let me see if I understand correctly.

People believe that one must repent and believe, and that one can only be an adult to do this because scripture explicitly says so.

Babies and small children are incapable of faith even though scripture explicitly gives an example of childlike faith. John the Baptist is a special case.

Babies and small children won’t go to hell though because they get a free pass until the age of reason. No explicit scripture on the age of reason or the free pass teaching in scripture, but it must be right because God is merciful.

Babies and small children cannot be baptized because there is no explicit scripture, the Catholic teaching (and Lutheran), of infant baptism is wrong because it is not explicit.

So explicit scripture showing a childlike faith is a special case, because children can’t have faith because… scripture? I? say so?

Seems as if there is a doulbe standard. A believers only baptism is scriptural even though it only began in the 1800’s. History clearly shows this. Yet the practice of infant baptism which is implicit in scripture, and was written about in the first century of christianty is a tradition of men?

The only thing I have to say is that scripture does warn us of those who will come along and teach falsely, corrupting God’s word.

Now, the choice for people out there is to decide who scripture was warning you against.

The first century Christians who were taught by the apostles themselves and practiced infant baptism or men who decided through scripture alone decide to implement a believers baptism at least 1600 years after the apostles died and deny children the saving Grace of God given to us throught baptism?
 
I have to say, I believe part of the reason the false doctrine of denying that infants can have any kind of faith and be saved by God through baptism is the Lutheran(?) belief that man is not made righteous, but only declared righteous.

The natural progression of denying God’s ability to truly make us clean instead of just declare us clean would be to believe that baptism is only symbolic instead a miracle from God, and a visable sign of His grace.

And of course, if it is only symbolic, with God doing nothing, then it would follow that children would be barred from baptism.

Does anyone else find it sadly ironic that Catholics, who are constantly attacked and told we have a works based salvation, are the ones that believe being born again through baptism, can be obtained by even babies who can really DO nothing at all, except come with a childlike faith?
 
Even though we can see in scripture that infants can recognize their Lord and jump for joy (childlike faith), we know the old Testament prefigures the New. In the Old Testament, infants were brought into the Covenant through the faith of the parents through circumcision.

Baptism replaced circumcision.

Yet some here would have us believe that God choose to have centuries of circumcision with infants entering into the Old Covenant, replace circumcision with baptism, yet not allow infants to enter into the New Covenant under baptism:( .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top