-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
Infant Baptism Is Just As Valid As Adult Baptism
- Thread starter RobertMazar
- Start date
RobertMazar
Member
- Dec 1, 2006
- 222
- 0
- Thread starter
- #42
Infant Baptism and Infant Dedication is the same thing as far as I am concerned because Infant Baptism is just a dedication of infants to Jesus and does not impart salvation. Just as Adult Baptism is just a dedication of adults to Jesus. Also, the formula that Jesus gave for Baptism is "Baptize them in the NAME OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT". Jesus did not state to Baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.
:shades[/quote]
If this is what your church has taught you, you should look for another. I truly mean this without malice.
C[/quote]
I was not taught what I believe about Baptism by the Catholic Church. I came up with my belief about Baptism on my own because it is the more logical way to believe about Baptism and so that I could retain believing in Infant Baptism as well as Adult Baptism. It is more logical to believe that Baptism and Dedication is the same thing since Baptism does not impart salvation but is instead a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus.
:shades
:shades[/quote]
If this is what your church has taught you, you should look for another. I truly mean this without malice.
C[/quote]
I was not taught what I believe about Baptism by the Catholic Church. I came up with my belief about Baptism on my own because it is the more logical way to believe about Baptism and so that I could retain believing in Infant Baptism as well as Adult Baptism. It is more logical to believe that Baptism and Dedication is the same thing since Baptism does not impart salvation but is instead a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus.
:shades
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Cornelius said:
I am in a hurry, I'll address this one, then the rest later...
I am NOT being silly, but serious. People were INDEED circumcised AS ADULTS. The Jews would "travel the lengths of the ocean" to proselytize (adults, I presume). A number of females converted to Judaism during this period of time, but fewer males - for obvious reasons. A male became part of the People of God, a Jew, by circumcision, not by birth...
Now, because circumcision was "automatically" performed by every Jewish set of parents upon their boys, every male was inevitably circumcised. But don't forget the converts. Scriptures relate that circumcision was the rite that was the sign of the Covenant, not natural birth to a Jewish couple.
The circumcision was a SIGN of MAN'S response to GOD'S covenant initiative. This is all in Genesis, if you care to read it again. (I presume you have read it at least once). And again, baptism is ALSO the sign of MAN'S response to God's covenant initiative - one which He already predestined the particular child for.
Be aware that God's predestination for our salvation from sins and our response to God's initiative to the graces He has given us are two different things that CAN be the same event during an adult baptism, but are not ABSOLUTELY required. God doesn't need to await our response - I know from my own personal experience that this is not the case, since I was never re-baptized, but 35 years later, I "reconverted" to Christ. The seed took root and began to grow much later for me (and you, from your story. The adult wetness did nothing but give you an emotional feeling. God came long before that to you, my friend)
I will address the rest later, thanks for your patience and respectful replies...
Regards
francisdesales said:
Col 2:11 in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Also, Israel were both circumcised and baptized . We know that they were all circumcised before leaving Egypt (Josh 5:5) and then baptized (1 Cor 10:2)
We know that the Egyptian Exodus is a picture of salvation. They eat the Lamb, (Jesus) and then the angle of Death pass them over (our curse is removed) they then leave Egypt (Sin and the world) and go through the Red Sea (Baptism) into the wilderness (we all go there after salvation to be tested)..............and so forth until we reach the Promised Land (The land of God's promises fulfilled ) But this is a picture. Corinthians tells us the Old Testament is like a "play" and we have to get our spiritual lessons from that which literally happened to them. We now have to "translate " it into the spirit.
The circumcision has a very deep and multiple meaning. It has to do with many aspects of our Christian life. I do not share this too many times on forums, because it is stepped on, but here is a short view. It shows the separation of the foreskin from the body. It symbolizes the cutting off of the flesh (old nature) Blood is involved, because is symbolizes the Blood of Jesus. It is the foreskin of a male that is cut, because it is where the seed passes through. Seed (sperma) is the same word that is used in the parable of the sower. The children of the Kingdom is the sperma that God sows into the world, because the real children of the Kingdom is the also walking as Jesus and they too are the Word . (This will not be understood in such a short note.however......)
It symbolizes that they children of the Kingdom only speak the Word and sow not their OWN seed. This is also seen , where God forbids the priests to be uncovered when they move up the steps of the altar to sacrifice. God does not want their own reproductive organs showing for the same symbolic reason. This is also the reason behind Eunuchs having a place for ever before God. Symbolically we all have to be Eunuchs, be covered, and circumcised.
It also deals with sanctification (separation) as the foreskin is separated from the body. We as Christians have been separated from the flesh, even the flesh that our own seed (words) passed through. We now do not sow our own seed, but only the Seed of the Word.
That is a small part of it. So dedication of a baby does not really come close to what God is really saying to us through all of this. So we still have a circumcision today. It happens without hands, but our hearts now get to go what they foreskin went through. Our flesh gets cut off by God. The flesh dies (crucified with Christ) and then we go , like Israel, through the water that takes this journey further. The washing of the water of the Word, they burial of the old self, the coming up of the resurrected Christ.
I think I have said what I needed to say on this topic. I understand why some cannot change their views, you really cannot change, even if you saw the truth.I understand why.
C
RobertMazar
Member
- Dec 1, 2006
- 222
- 0
- Thread starter
- #46
On logical and analytical thinking because it is more logical to believe that Baptism of infants and adults is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus then believing that Baptism imparts salvation. And I came up with my belief concerning Baptism so that I could retain believing in Infant Baptism as well as Adult Baptism.Cornelius said:
:shades
RobertMazar
Member
- Dec 1, 2006
- 222
- 0
- Thread starter
- #48
Kind of right in the middle.[/quote]
Say what?
Say what?
A-Christian
Member
- Nov 8, 2007
- 351
- 0
Here's my two cents on the subject of infant baptism. Because I'm Catholic, my comments are from that perspective, meaning that these ideas are based on teachings that are very very old.
Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experienceâ€â€that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.
As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.
Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sinâ€â€only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Christ Calls All to Baptism. Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"â€â€children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"â€â€that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.
Were Only Adults Baptized? Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginningâ€â€there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we neverâ€â€not even onceâ€â€find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). 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.
Specific Biblical References? But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
No Cry of "Invention!" None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be whenâ€â€exactlyâ€â€an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?
But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.
Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.
It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).
Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experienceâ€â€that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.
As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.
Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sinâ€â€only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Christ Calls All to Baptism. Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"â€â€children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"â€â€that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.
Were Only Adults Baptized? Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginningâ€â€there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we neverâ€â€not even onceâ€â€find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). 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.
Specific Biblical References? But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
No Cry of "Invention!" None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be whenâ€â€exactlyâ€â€an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?
But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.
Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.
It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).
A-Christian said:
I just want to point out to readers, that "very very old" is not necessarily the way that we judge things to be true. Very , very old teaching can also be very, very wrong.
False teachings started in the days of Paul already and some have made it to our days.They are now very, very old, wrong teachings.
2Pe 2:1 But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
The first church had their share of false teachings as well.
RobertMazar
Member
- Dec 1, 2006
- 222
- 0
- Thread starter
- #52
I feel the need to retain the belief in Infant Baptism because I am Catholic. What is the matter with believing that Baptism and Dedication is the same thing? It is more logical to believe that Infant Baptism and Adult Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus then to believe that Infant Baptism and Adult Baptism imparts salvation.Pogo said:
:shades
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
OK, Cornelius, I am trying to catch up with your posts...
No, Baptism is NOT a prayer. It is NOT an ordinance. It is God coming to bring about a new birth, introducing the new child of God into a new way of life. With this comes healing, a saving from sin. The Scriptures are full of people praying for the healing of other people. I will yet again suggest you read Mark 2, where the crippled man did NOT ask the Christ directly to heal him, spiritually OR physically. It was the work of other people that brought the man before the Christ so that Jesus could heal the man.
You say that a person cannot "proxy forgive", but that is exactly what the priest does during the Day of Atonement. He asks for the forgiveness of sins for the sake of the people, just as OUR OWN High Priest does, Jesus Christ. HE is the One who goes before the Father, for our sake.
So again, I have to disagree with you.
He cannot break His own Word is not a limitation placed upon God by the Bible, but by God's own most Holy Attributes, being Truth Itself. Truth cannot lie. This "limitation" is a function of Who God is, not because the Bible restricts God.
You are placing limitations upon God based upon YOUR understanding of the Bible, NOT the attributes of God. He is merciful and does not require someone to call upon Him to send His Spirit upon that person. It is that first entrance of the Spirit that even moves that person to call upon God in the FIRST PLACE, so yes, the Spirit blows where He wills even before you ask Him.
Infant baptism is implied in Sacred Scriptures. There is nothing in Scriptures that supports your idea that one CANNOT bring an infant to be baptized. Our doctrines are found from Scriptures, whether implied or explicit. 'Entire families' means the entire family, no children excluded. Thus, I can say that infant baptism IS biblical, since there is no indication that "entire families" excluded children.
Yet again, you forget that not only infants were circumcised, so your entire scheme is not of much value. Circumcision is a sign of the Covenant. God can covenant with children and adults. He can baptize into the NEW Covenant children and adults, vice versus of the OLD Covenant.
Unless you feel that the Old Covenant is SUPERIOR to the New - the Old Covenant allowed ANYONE to enter, as long as they were circumcised. According to your limitations placed upon God, the New Covenant is INFERIOR because one must first provide a statement of faith (we'll get into THAT later...)
Exactly. Thus, baptism is a ritual that can be performed on any person willing to receive it, either as a child or an adult.
Please show me the Scriptures where you secure this idea that "God never predestines a child to baptism". That is begging the question based upon your idea that only an adult can be baptized, an idea not found in Scriptures.
A person is predestined to the elect whether they are a child or not, since it is God doing the electing and it is God doing it even before they were BORN!!!
The more we discuss this, the more we get the idea that one is of the elect if they do a proper work in God's eyes, perform a faith proclamation...
The elect can manifest Christ at any point in their lives. The seed can be planted by the Spirit and only when God is ready to manifest Himself through the person does the seed take growth and produce fruit.
By stating that one must FIRST state a declaration of faith, you in effect say that the Spirit ONLY comes to you when YOU say He is to come. Thus, the Spirit is dependent upon a work of Cornelius, not when the Spirit desires to come. By refusing to accept that the Spirit can blow upon an infant or young child, you are stating that Baptism relies upon the recipient's own faith.
Clearly, that indicates that you do not know where faith ITSELF comes from in the first place. Perhaps you should read Ephesians 2:8-9.
Since we are ALL born with sin, the infant can also express the exact same symbolism... We are all born separate from God, in the sin of Adam. Whether we are an adult or an infant, we require God's gracious gift.
As promised, I said I would return to this. NOW, please explain where faith comes from... Is it something from Cornelius' adult mind and heart or is it a gift from God ENTIRELY. Please carefully consider Scriptures before you answer this question...
It does. Why? Because Baptism is a work of the Spirit, not a work of Cornelius. Again, the more we discuss this, the more we see how your point of view is a works oriented salvation while Catholicism's expression of infant baptism clearly points to the Scriptural concept that salvation is entirely a gift of God...
That fact is true for any one of us, Cornelius. The sacraments are all matters of faith. Anyone who has been Christian for any length of time will realize that a person bases their belief that God has come to them on FAITH, not on INTELLECTUAL or EMPIRICAL CERTAINTY. Over and over, Paul speaks about this faith in the Lord's presence within us.
Even the gifts of the Spirit, tongues, can be faked or can be emotional outbursts generated by our own personality. We have faith that our actions are moved by God, but cannot prove that to a single soul outside of ourselves. And that is fact.
Sometimes, the Truth is not so clear. We ponder over the Word of God and realize that sometimes, we find more meaning behind the literal words. That is why we continue to read the Word.
Naturally, to walk in Christ is something different than being freed from sin. You are confusing the two. An infant does not "walk in Christ" as yet. However, the infant is freed from the power of the sin of Adam as a result of God, no different than an adult who is baptized. The adult makes a committment to Christ, a desire to repent and change - but that refers to the future walk. It is NOT a "CONDITION" to become baptized. The human response to the gift of God naturally would lead someone to want to walk in Christ. However, it is not necessarily so. Consider that Simon the Magican was baptized by the Holy Spirit and in the name of Christ. How was his subsequent walk?
You see, the two things are similar but separate.
Again, you are mixing the graces received at Baptism (purely a gift) to our subsequent response, which is an obedience to God. Obedience to God does not change what happened at Baptism. We remain children of God, whether we fall away into the abyss of hell or remain faithful to God and enter heaven. That cannot change. The gates to heaven have been opened to us, the road is yet narrow, however. Our obedience has nothing to do with what happened that moment when the Spirit of God came to us.
You are mixing the two manners of salvation, which is causing your confusion.
1. Baptism. We are saved from sin, are born from above, have received the gift of the Spirit. This happens at one moment in the past. We are saved...
2. Entrance into eternal life, dependent upon our subsequent acceptance of the gift of the Spirt, who gives faith, hope and love to the new Christian so as to walk in faith working in love. Without this walk in Christ, a person cannot enter the Kindgom. We are BEING saved or we WILL be saved.
1. Saved once in the past, entirely a gift.
2. Being saved and will be saved based upon our walk in Christ.
How would you describe how an ADULT is "magicallly transferred into the elect"? By God or by the "elect's" own abilities?
Call it magic, whatever. However, it is ENTIRELY God's will that makes us one of the elect, the people of God. Now whether we respond to that grace and continue to walk in Christ, that is another story.
It seems to me that you say one thing (saved by grace), but you really do not believe that. You believe we are saved by actually calling upon God with a faith declaration. Only upon Cornelius' call is Cornelius freed from sin?
Regards
Cornelius said:
No, Baptism is NOT a prayer. It is NOT an ordinance. It is God coming to bring about a new birth, introducing the new child of God into a new way of life. With this comes healing, a saving from sin. The Scriptures are full of people praying for the healing of other people. I will yet again suggest you read Mark 2, where the crippled man did NOT ask the Christ directly to heal him, spiritually OR physically. It was the work of other people that brought the man before the Christ so that Jesus could heal the man.
You say that a person cannot "proxy forgive", but that is exactly what the priest does during the Day of Atonement. He asks for the forgiveness of sins for the sake of the people, just as OUR OWN High Priest does, Jesus Christ. HE is the One who goes before the Father, for our sake.
So again, I have to disagree with you.
Cornelius said:
He cannot break His own Word is not a limitation placed upon God by the Bible, but by God's own most Holy Attributes, being Truth Itself. Truth cannot lie. This "limitation" is a function of Who God is, not because the Bible restricts God.
You are placing limitations upon God based upon YOUR understanding of the Bible, NOT the attributes of God. He is merciful and does not require someone to call upon Him to send His Spirit upon that person. It is that first entrance of the Spirit that even moves that person to call upon God in the FIRST PLACE, so yes, the Spirit blows where He wills even before you ask Him.
Cornelius said:
Infant baptism is implied in Sacred Scriptures. There is nothing in Scriptures that supports your idea that one CANNOT bring an infant to be baptized. Our doctrines are found from Scriptures, whether implied or explicit. 'Entire families' means the entire family, no children excluded. Thus, I can say that infant baptism IS biblical, since there is no indication that "entire families" excluded children.
Cornelius said:
Yet again, you forget that not only infants were circumcised, so your entire scheme is not of much value. Circumcision is a sign of the Covenant. God can covenant with children and adults. He can baptize into the NEW Covenant children and adults, vice versus of the OLD Covenant.
Unless you feel that the Old Covenant is SUPERIOR to the New - the Old Covenant allowed ANYONE to enter, as long as they were circumcised. According to your limitations placed upon God, the New Covenant is INFERIOR because one must first provide a statement of faith (we'll get into THAT later...)
Cornelius said:
Exactly. Thus, baptism is a ritual that can be performed on any person willing to receive it, either as a child or an adult.
Cornelius said:
Please show me the Scriptures where you secure this idea that "God never predestines a child to baptism". That is begging the question based upon your idea that only an adult can be baptized, an idea not found in Scriptures.
A person is predestined to the elect whether they are a child or not, since it is God doing the electing and it is God doing it even before they were BORN!!!
The more we discuss this, the more we get the idea that one is of the elect if they do a proper work in God's eyes, perform a faith proclamation...
The elect can manifest Christ at any point in their lives. The seed can be planted by the Spirit and only when God is ready to manifest Himself through the person does the seed take growth and produce fruit.
Cornelius said:
By stating that one must FIRST state a declaration of faith, you in effect say that the Spirit ONLY comes to you when YOU say He is to come. Thus, the Spirit is dependent upon a work of Cornelius, not when the Spirit desires to come. By refusing to accept that the Spirit can blow upon an infant or young child, you are stating that Baptism relies upon the recipient's own faith.
Clearly, that indicates that you do not know where faith ITSELF comes from in the first place. Perhaps you should read Ephesians 2:8-9.
Cornelius said:
Since we are ALL born with sin, the infant can also express the exact same symbolism... We are all born separate from God, in the sin of Adam. Whether we are an adult or an infant, we require God's gracious gift.
Cornelius said:
As promised, I said I would return to this. NOW, please explain where faith comes from... Is it something from Cornelius' adult mind and heart or is it a gift from God ENTIRELY. Please carefully consider Scriptures before you answer this question...
Cornelius said:
It does. Why? Because Baptism is a work of the Spirit, not a work of Cornelius. Again, the more we discuss this, the more we see how your point of view is a works oriented salvation while Catholicism's expression of infant baptism clearly points to the Scriptural concept that salvation is entirely a gift of God...
Cornelius said:
That fact is true for any one of us, Cornelius. The sacraments are all matters of faith. Anyone who has been Christian for any length of time will realize that a person bases their belief that God has come to them on FAITH, not on INTELLECTUAL or EMPIRICAL CERTAINTY. Over and over, Paul speaks about this faith in the Lord's presence within us.
Even the gifts of the Spirit, tongues, can be faked or can be emotional outbursts generated by our own personality. We have faith that our actions are moved by God, but cannot prove that to a single soul outside of ourselves. And that is fact.
Cornelius said:
Sometimes, the Truth is not so clear. We ponder over the Word of God and realize that sometimes, we find more meaning behind the literal words. That is why we continue to read the Word.
Naturally, to walk in Christ is something different than being freed from sin. You are confusing the two. An infant does not "walk in Christ" as yet. However, the infant is freed from the power of the sin of Adam as a result of God, no different than an adult who is baptized. The adult makes a committment to Christ, a desire to repent and change - but that refers to the future walk. It is NOT a "CONDITION" to become baptized. The human response to the gift of God naturally would lead someone to want to walk in Christ. However, it is not necessarily so. Consider that Simon the Magican was baptized by the Holy Spirit and in the name of Christ. How was his subsequent walk?
You see, the two things are similar but separate.
Cornelius said:
Again, you are mixing the graces received at Baptism (purely a gift) to our subsequent response, which is an obedience to God. Obedience to God does not change what happened at Baptism. We remain children of God, whether we fall away into the abyss of hell or remain faithful to God and enter heaven. That cannot change. The gates to heaven have been opened to us, the road is yet narrow, however. Our obedience has nothing to do with what happened that moment when the Spirit of God came to us.
Cornelius said:I hope yo do not believe that you will be saved without any fruit? I hope you do not believe you will be saved without obedience to the Word? I pray you know that both these things are things we do. My human effort will not save me, but if I lack to run this race , I will not make it. So the doctrine of "works" need a lot of "work"Its abused and misunderstood. People use it like a religious club, without knowing what it means.
You are mixing the two manners of salvation, which is causing your confusion.
1. Baptism. We are saved from sin, are born from above, have received the gift of the Spirit. This happens at one moment in the past. We are saved...
2. Entrance into eternal life, dependent upon our subsequent acceptance of the gift of the Spirt, who gives faith, hope and love to the new Christian so as to walk in faith working in love. Without this walk in Christ, a person cannot enter the Kindgom. We are BEING saved or we WILL be saved.
1. Saved once in the past, entirely a gift.
2. Being saved and will be saved based upon our walk in Christ.
Cornelius said:
How would you describe how an ADULT is "magicallly transferred into the elect"? By God or by the "elect's" own abilities?
Call it magic, whatever. However, it is ENTIRELY God's will that makes us one of the elect, the people of God. Now whether we respond to that grace and continue to walk in Christ, that is another story.
It seems to me that you say one thing (saved by grace), but you really do not believe that. You believe we are saved by actually calling upon God with a faith declaration. Only upon Cornelius' call is Cornelius freed from sin?
Regards
I
Imagican
Guest
Infant Baptism may well induce positive thoughts into the minds and hearts of them that have 'bought into' such beliefs, but the reality is that WE are NOT ABLE to SAVE Anyone. it is NOT UP to US to be the 'Saviors'. We are simply able to witness and testify as to the love that WE have been offered by God through His Son.
Any church that teaches IT has the POWER to SAVE is a 'man-made' institution designed to FOOL people into belief in THEM that was NEVER meant to be.
Any church that teaches that IT is more important that a SINGLE SOLITARY SOLE is a 'man-made' institution designed to teach others to worship IT instead of God through His Son.
And ONLY such a 'church' would teach something as inane as 'infant baptism'. This is AN INDICATION that the ONE doing the Baptizing is ABLE to determine the Spirituality of an individual BEFORE they are even of the age of accountability. This is UTTERLY against all that is taught in scripture.
Anyone that would argue this point is simply required to SHOW, through scripture, that this has EVER been offered as a viable means of Salvation. Since it CAN'T, it becomes TOTALLY apparent that these 'teachings' are MAN MADE and have NO bearing on TRUTH.
NO ONE can MAKE someone ACCEPT forgiveness. That is IMPOSSIBLE. And there is NO CHURCH that has the POWER to forgive sin. This LOOSE AND BIND stuff is taken to awful extreme interpretation considering that it WAS the apostles that were offered such power and they have been DEAD for close to TWO THOUSAND YEARS. Unless, of course, you would offer that there are STILL apostles today.....................................which would be merely MORE 'man-made' beliefs. For there is NOTHING offered up in scripture that indicates ANYTHING other than the apostles were for a TIME and for a PURPOSE. And that TIME and PURPOSE has been fulfilled.
Blessings,
MEC
Any church that teaches IT has the POWER to SAVE is a 'man-made' institution designed to FOOL people into belief in THEM that was NEVER meant to be.
Any church that teaches that IT is more important that a SINGLE SOLITARY SOLE is a 'man-made' institution designed to teach others to worship IT instead of God through His Son.
And ONLY such a 'church' would teach something as inane as 'infant baptism'. This is AN INDICATION that the ONE doing the Baptizing is ABLE to determine the Spirituality of an individual BEFORE they are even of the age of accountability. This is UTTERLY against all that is taught in scripture.
Anyone that would argue this point is simply required to SHOW, through scripture, that this has EVER been offered as a viable means of Salvation. Since it CAN'T, it becomes TOTALLY apparent that these 'teachings' are MAN MADE and have NO bearing on TRUTH.
NO ONE can MAKE someone ACCEPT forgiveness. That is IMPOSSIBLE. And there is NO CHURCH that has the POWER to forgive sin. This LOOSE AND BIND stuff is taken to awful extreme interpretation considering that it WAS the apostles that were offered such power and they have been DEAD for close to TWO THOUSAND YEARS. Unless, of course, you would offer that there are STILL apostles today.....................................which would be merely MORE 'man-made' beliefs. For there is NOTHING offered up in scripture that indicates ANYTHING other than the apostles were for a TIME and for a PURPOSE. And that TIME and PURPOSE has been fulfilled.
Blessings,
MEC
I mentioned that I have said, what I wanted to say on this.
We have to face the fact that not everybody will be baptized. Some through "logic" others through what their church taught them, some who are disobedient, some for whatever other reason .
So, let those who understand and are obedient go to the water, the rest, stay out of it. I really think you should stay out until you understand what it is about, because you will only get wet. No use getting baptized if you think its a dedication or whatever else you believe it to be.
Its like speaking in tongues. All who believe in it, speak. Those who do not believe, do not speak.
Simple.
C
We have to face the fact that not everybody will be baptized. Some through "logic" others through what their church taught them, some who are disobedient, some for whatever other reason .
So, let those who understand and are obedient go to the water, the rest, stay out of it. I really think you should stay out until you understand what it is about, because you will only get wet. No use getting baptized if you think its a dedication or whatever else you believe it to be.
Its like speaking in tongues. All who believe in it, speak. Those who do not believe, do not speak.
Simple.
C
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Imagican said:
Does this rant have anything to add one way or the other about infant baptism, or are you letting your emotional hatred of the Catholic Church interfere with your ability to present anything of value to this thread?
If I am not mistaken, this forum has rules against making such statements as above. If you have the overwhelming desire to be divisive towards another Christian organization, I would advise either debating someone or yelling really loudly into your pillow until the urge passes...
francisdesales said:
I do not see this as something aimed just at the Catholic denomination, there are many other denominations that preach this too. As I said, I grew up in one such denomination myself.
It just strengthens my previous post: Baptism, is just for certain people, as spelled out in the Bible. The rest cannot be baptized and even if they do and they do not understand it, they only get wet. These denominations who practice sprinkling should carry on doing it, because until they understand it, they are disqualified anyway from participating in real baptism.
I hope I can truly say this is my last on this topic LOL, but something always pops up, that make me want to answer.
RobertMazar
Member
- Dec 1, 2006
- 222
- 0
- Thread starter
- #59
Where did you get the idea that I believe that the Bible is illogical? I do not and have never believed that the Bible is illogical. I believe that the Bible is totally logical. And you never answered the question "What is the matter with believing that Baptism and Dedication is the same thing?", considering that Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Jesus.Cornelius said:
:shades
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Cornelius said:
This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church???
Whatever you say...
