Why Baptize a Baby?

[GodsGrace]

I have not displayed fear of responding to your question. You were answered.



Dude...you are steeped in your Gentile church teachings and rituals;
that MIXES the Old Covenant (given the Hebrews and Jews) with the New Covenant (given the Jews and Gentiles).

Under the Old Covenant, ONLY fathers attended Temple....not women, not wives, not children, not house servants.

The Rabbi's conducted the Temple Service. The men sat with their mouth shut and their ears open. What the men heard and believed, transferred to HIS FAMILY, by the man himself TEACHING HIS FAMILY (wives, children, servants).

The Circumcision of a male babies foreskin, was performed BY A father WHO was AGREEING with God Covenant, to Raise up his sons in the Word of God, that that son would be then PREPARED to grow up, and RAISE UP his own family IN THE WORD OF GOD.

Gods end of the Covenant, was to BLESS and SAVE the man and his family, "IF" THEY REMAINED in faith to God.

And the generations, one family with the father Head of the Family continued ....
Sons growing up, steeped in Gods Word, circumcising his sons, teaching his family, and they receiving blessings for their faith, and Salvation, should they continue in faith until their physical death.

I have seen you teach the SAME, as your church has taught you IS still NECESSARY for you to RECEIVE SALVATION.

Under the New Covenant, fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, children and servants, are all welcome to HEAR first hand the Word of God.

Under the New Covenant, fathers and mothers are to STILL required to expose and teach their children to the Word of God and His Precepts.

Under the New Covenant, the Lord SAVES individuals WHO individually CHOOSE to receive HIS GIFT of SALVATION and HIS GIFT of the HOLY SPIRIT.

They NO LONGER WAIT for the Gifts to be GIVEN THEM at the END of their natural lives.....THEY Receive the GIFTS after they have BEEN PREPARED to RECEIVE the Gifts.

The preparation of the INDIVIDUAL...is "BEGUN" by a Parent teaching the child "ABOUT" the Lord.

The preparation of the INDIVIDUAL child...
IS, continued BY THE INDIVIDUAL CHILD, who is Growing, aging, (hopefully) maturing
to CONTINUE LEARNING ABOUT THE LORD....

OR NOT...(in which case, the individual is fallen away from being ENLIGHTENED by the Word of God).

As the child is growing, aging, experiencing the world, believing, not believing, wondering, playing, working, exposed and participating in lying, cheating, injustice, etc..... he has opportunity...of his own volition to TURN to God, and again or for the first time; LEARN ABOUT GOD; Become ENLIGHTENED by the Spirit of Hearing Gods WORD.....and choose HIMSELF to Believe it OR NOT.....and choose HIMSELF to COMMIT his LIFE to the Lord....OR NOT.

A man WHO CHOOSES TO HEARTFULLY COMMIT His Life to the Lord ...
RECEIVES the Lords GIFT of FORGIVENESS, the Lord GIFT of SALVATION and the Lords GIFT of a QUICKENED SPIRIT and the Lords GIFT of His Spirit....

Those GIFTS are received unto THAT individual man, RIGHT THEN.
NOT at the END of his natural life.
NOT because someone else asked FOR HIM.
NOT because of Water or a Ceremony.
NOT because the man was sitting in a Church.
NOT because the man was a member of any particular man made Chruch.

The man received those GIFTS, because the man PROFESSED He Belief in the Lord, AND the man AGREED to receive the Lords Gifts.

And the Lord Himself has ASSURED the man, that the Lords OWN Spirit would KEEP the man FOREVER FAITHFUL unto:
Thee Lord God Almighty.

Foreskin Circumcision is a act of EARLY men performed in accordance with the OLD Covenant, men made with God, to raise up their own sons in the Word of God.

Gods Circumcision of the HEART, is a Circumcision God performs IN MEN, UNDER the New Covenant, when such men HAVE Chosen themselves, to give their Life to the Lord.

Water Baptism is a act performed in accordance with Gods Direction given John the Baptist to PREPARE men FOR the IDEA of Baptism, that was to BE REVEALED when Jesus was to become Manifested in the Flesh, for men to SEE, and He teaching of the Baptism of the HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD, that was prepared for men to receive.....but that men COULD NOT SEE.

You should have LEARNED a long time ago...
The purpose and difference between...

Circumcisions and Baptisms MEN PERFORM...
(A foreshadow)
And circumcision and Baptism the Lord God Himself performs.
(Soul saving, and Spirit quickening, once and forever).

Glory to God,
Taken

Great post!

 

[GodsGrace]

Really!, isnt that what is happening here.

Night

I don't know mj. YOU tell me.
@Taken has given you a "like".
I don't even know what you're talking about !

 

[Taken]

I don't know mj. YOU tell me.
@Taken has given you a "like".
I don't even know what you're talking about !

The Confusion when discussing Scriptural and Spiritual matters....

Some Churches teach EVERYTHING in Scripture applies to EVERYONE.

When in Fact ALL Scripture is TRUE, but not ALL Scripture APPLIES to every single person.

A person saying.....Hey, I'm a believer, I'm a Christian, I'm a Muslim, a Buddhist or whatever, merely gives an INDICATION of the persons beliefs....
IT DOES NOT GIVE A FULL or ACCURATE DISCLOSURE of WHAT is APPLICABLE TO THAT PERSON.

A person CAN QUIT Believing...
A person CAN QUIT Trusting...
A person CAN QUIT calling themselves a Christian (ie a follower of Christ's Teachings)...

A person CAN QUIT believing IN God.
A person CAN QUIT believing IN Jesus.
A person CAN QUIT believing IN Idols, Mohammad, Allah, the umpteen Buddah's and Hindu gods, Greek gods, and so forth.

A man WHO CAN NOT QUIT Believing and Trusting In Gods Word IS Specifically...
A man who HAS BECOME "CONVERTED" In Christ the Lord Jesus.

Such a man FOREVER SHALL BELIEVE IN and TRUST IN GOD, The Lord Jesus, The Holy Spirit....AKA....Thee Lord God Almighty.

Once a man has ACHIEVED ^ THAT status,
that man IS FOREVER SEALED unto God through Christ the Lord Jesus.

Now what Scriptures APPLY TO HIM, ARE ONLY those Scriptures that APPLY TO A man WHO IS SEALED unto God Through Christ the Lord Jesus.

The PROBLEM with discussing Scriptures with other men....is:

1) some have no clue of what exactly applies to them....or why.

2) some men profess they are bound by Scriptures that apply to them and do not apply to them.

3) some men like to DICTATE what applies to OTHER MEN SEALED unto God, when the Scripture does NOT apply to a man SEALED unto God.

4) it is the INDIVIDUALS responsibility to KNOW their OWN Standing with God....and WHY...and few seem to have grasped that notion.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary, I don't really know what you want me to show you.

This is the point,,,,are we imputed with Adams sin?
If Yes, then all babies should be baptized.
If No, then it doesn't matter.

I'm sure you know that the concept of original sin was conceived by Augustine.
After this concept became dogma, it became necessary to baptized every baby ASAP in case of death.

The cc believes we are imputed with the sin of Adam.
This is the pivotal question,,,,,are we?

Hello,

Yes, we are imputed with Adams sin. The “concept of original sin” is in Scripture: Romans 5:12-19 it was not “conceived by Augustine” any more than the Trinity was “conceived”.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Hello,

Yes, we are imputed with Adams sin. The “concept of original sin” is in Scripture: Romans 5:12-19 it was not “conceived by Augustine” any more than the Trinity was “conceived”.

It is notable that other non-Catholic groups do not interpret Romans 5:12-19 the way you do, and don't find those ideas any where in the Bible. For these people, Augustine is the author of the imputation of Original Sin idea because he's the one that famously interpreted scripture that way. Just like Calvin can be seen as the author his ideas because he's the one that famously interpreted scripture that way.

 

[CoreIssue]

!! You're a better woman than I am!

I'm happy to confirm that Catholics themselves will tell you that being baptized alone will not save a person. They say that the baptism must be "accepted" at some point in the adult life - or the age of reason.

Before Constantine, only those in a Christian household were baptized, including the children. This made some sense since people were very devoted at that time...whole families went to the lions, think of it. The chances were that if one grew up in a Christian family, he would also become a Christian.

After Constantine, the church was truly corrupted, in my humble opinion.
Now EVERYONE in the state HAD to be baptized, and thus began what we could call mechanical Christianity? IOW, it began to be believed that if everyone just did what the church/state said, they would be saved.
Go to church
Go to confession
Be baptized
etc.

This was a corruption of Christianity. Baptism became meaningless.

I differ.

Roman Catholicism was never Christian, so it could not corrupt Christianity. It corrupted itself.

 

[CoreIssue]

It is notable that other non-Catholic groups do not interpret Romans 5:12-19 the way you do, and don't find those ideas any where in the Bible. For these people, Augustine is the author of the imputation of Original Sin idea because he's the one that famously interpreted scripture that way. Just like Calvin can be seen as the author his ideas because he's the one that famously interpreted scripture that way.

Sin nature was not imputed, it was inherited.

 

[Marymog]

Mary,
I listed churches that DO baptize babies and it seems to me that they're in the majority.

No one should have any problem with a baby being baptized.
I DO believe that Jesus meant for adults who are believers and have been taught the good news are the ones who should receive baptism. I believe this because of Mathew 28:19. Jesus told the Apostles to go and make disciples, baptizing them. So it does seem to me that we should be believers first so that the baptism could be truly representative.

Baptism was very important and a part of salvation, so we should be able to understand that adults also wanted their children to be baptized with the intent of raising them as Christians. Things were much more simple at this time.

Then Augustine made Original Sin a doctrine and it became imperative that babies be baptized. I don't care for Augustine...I believe he complicated some beliefs that the ECF held. IOW, we really do have to decide HOW Adam's sin was imputed to all of humanity. The bible does not teach this...it teaches that we are all responsible for our own sin.

As you must surely know, the church no longer teaches that unbaptized babies go to hell.

This is a good link...

There’s also the Massacre of the Innocents, in which Herod murdered the children in the vicinity of Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16-18). The Church celebrates their feast day as the Feast of the Holy Innocents, and they’re considered the very first Christian martyrs. St. Augustine himself (while expressing severe doubts as to the eternal fate of unbaptized children) was explicit that these infants were in Heaven:

source: Where Do Unbaptized Babies Go When They Die? – Shameless Popery

Thank you.

Matthew 28:19 says to go and baptize. It doesn’t say adults only. If we look at the rest of Scripture it is clear that entire families were baptized. Infants are part of families.

Scripture says that baptism washes away sin and saves. Infants have original sin and you want them to be saved I assume?

I agree with you. Things were much more simple at that time. At that time they also underestood the connection between baptism and circumcission which occurred on the 8th day. Scripture even equates the two. Can you see the connection that your Christian brothers/sisters from 2,000 years ago osbserved and practiced?

Your Augustine theory is incorrect. Augustine had no AUTHORITY to make Church doctrine.

Furthermore you should read what Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote about infant baptism MANY years before Augustine which CLEARLY shows that infant baptism was being practiced in the 2nd century.

Historical Mary

 

[Marymog]

Which brings us to the question: whose sins? That person's or someone else's or both?

Thank you for sharing your perspective here Mary.

I personally don't find history to be a strong epistemological method for determining Truth, so while I respect your love of history, I'm not interested in debating that.

In your book only Reformation history matters.

I wish you well in your theory.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

In your book only Reformation history matters.

I wish you well in your theory.

Why do people keep thinking I'm a Protestant or determine Truth via history, when I have repeatedly said neither of those things are true?
I'm just respectfully explaining different perspectives across Christiandom.
And why won't people actually answer the questions asked of them?

 

[Marymog]

It is notable that other non-Catholic groups do not interpret Romans 5:12-19 the way you do, and don't find those ideas any where in the Bible. For these people, Augustine is the author of the imputation of Original Sin idea because he's the one that famously interpreted scripture that way. Just like Calvin can be seen as the author his ideas because he's the one that famously interpreted scripture that way.

Hi JD22,

You are confused about my statements. What I have written is not the way I, Marymog, interpret Romans 5:12-19. It is the way The Church and your Christian brothers/sisters interprets Scripture and has been doing so for 2,000 year.

It is also notable that 500 year old non-Catholic groups disagree with each other on this and agree with the Catholic/Orthodox 2,000 year old teaching. I

It doesn’t matter if they believe Augustine is the author of original sin. It just shows their lack of knowledge of their own Christian history and historical writings that they can easily Google.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Why do people keep thinking I'm a Protestant or determine Truth via history, when I have repeatedly said neither of those things are true?

I'm just respectfully explaining different perspectives across Christiandom.

Because you appeared to disregard Christian history any older than the Reformation. That’s why.

I find it fascinating that you don’t find history to be a good method for determining Truth. If you don’t use historical Christian writings to determine Truth then that suggest to me you come up with your own Truth when you read scripture. You are self taught? Is that a fair assessment?

Curious Mary

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Because you appeared to disregard Christian history any older than the Reformation. That’s why.

Correction: what I said was that I don't find history to be a good epistemological method for determining Truth. All history. Ain't nothing special about pre or post Reformation.

I find it fascinating that you don’t find history to be a good method for determining Truth.

Because history is the imperfect recounting of imperfect events told by the imperfect victor. It has little to do with Truthfulness, and much to do with military/political/popularity might.

If you don’t use historical Christian writings to determine Truth then that suggest to me you come up with your own Truth when you read scripture. You are self taught? Is that a fair assessment?

God is the Teacher. God testifies of Truth.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No.
The demons do not believe as I do.
Learn what believe meant at the time of the NT.
It is Not "belief plus obedience".
Belief Means obedience.

I don't know if you're lying or just ignorant.

Uhhhh, no - your statement in RED is ignorant.
The entire chapter of James 2 is about the difference between belief and obedience.

James stresses that belief is NOT enough - that a follower of Christ must be obedient and NOT simply a "believer".
That's why he compares those kinds of believers with the demons. If ALL you do is believe - then according to James and the Holy Spirit - you're NO better off than the demons (James 2:19) . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

Hello,

Yes, we are imputed with Adams sin. The “concept of original sin” is in Scripture: Romans 5:12-19 it was not “conceived by Augustine” any more than the Trinity was “conceived”.

On phone and cannot write too much.
We are NOT individually held responsible for Adam's sin.
We suffer from the consequences of his fall and the breaking of the Edenic Covenant as he represented all of mankind.

Romans 5 is referring to the change in our nature due to Adams fall,,,,it does not state we are personally responsible for his sin. This would not be justice from a just God.

If we were imputed his sin, any child that died would go to hell since he would not be born from above as in John 3.

Sorry, can't post scripture right now.

 

[GodsGrace]

Uhhhh, no - your statement in RED is ignorant.
The entire chapter of James 2 is about the difference between belief and obedience.

James stresses that belief is NOT enough - that a follower of Christ must be obedient and NOT simply a "believer".
That's why he compares those kinds of believers with the demons. If ALL you do is believe - then according to James and the Holy Spirit - you're NO better off than the demons (James 2:19) . . .

Don't you read my posts?

Believe means to obey.
I did NOT say that one could believe without also obeying.

Quit fighting and start comprehending.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sorry. You'll have to find different scripture to show One person that was baptized before believing.

I've already used the above, Acts 8, the story of the Ethiopean, to prove he WAS saved.
Study the verses.

This was NEVER the argument.

The argument was that ALL examples in the NT of people being baptized were people who were SAVED prior to being baptized.
PAY ATTENTION to the conversation. NOWHERE does Scripture say this about the Ethiopian Eunuch.

If the Eunuch believed that Jesus is the Son of God - SO DO THE DEMONS (James 2:19).
This doesn't save you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Don't you read my posts?

Believe means to obey.
I did NOT say that one could believe without also obeying.

Quit fighting and start comprehending.

NOT according to James 2:19 - ad NOT According to Matt. 7:21.
You need to properly divide Scripture and read it in CONTEXT.

 

[GodsGrace]

I differ.

Roman Catholicism was never Christian, so it could not corrupt Christianity. It corrupted itself.

What do you mean by "Roman" Catholicism?

If Catholicism is not Christian, then what is it?

 

[BreadOfLife]

LOL But no matter IF you were wondering if OT babies could talk...
Cutting off a 8 day old males foreskin was not water baptism, nor saved the child's soul.
LOL...
God Saves Souls!
A child is not saved because their parents proclaim to Raise the child according to the parents Belief....
Under the Old circumcision of the foreskin.
Or
Under Tradition of a baby baptism/christening ceremony some Churches promote.

Any man can LEAD another toward Salvation...However Only Thee Lord God Saves...and water and foreskin circumcision and pomp of mans traditions have nothing to do with Thee Lord Gods Salvation.

Glory To God,
Taken

WHY do you keep RUNNING from the question?? Are you that ill-equipped to answer it??

Tell me HOW an 8-day-old Baby could be brought into the Covenant with God by his PARENTS making the decision FOR him - but a baby under the NEW Covenant CANNOT have his parents speak FOR him.

Can you answer that??