Why Baptize a Baby?

[Dave L]

Utter NONSENSE.

In Acts 8, the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading Scripture with Phillip and asked to be Baptized.
NO mention of his being "SAVED" before his Baptism.

Get your facts straight . . .

Jesus says whoever believes is saved. And the eunuch obviously believed or he would have shunned baptism.

 

[CoreIssue]

Utter NONSENSE.

In Acts 8, the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading Scripture with Phillip and asked to be Baptized.
NO mention of his being "SAVED" before his Baptism.

Get your facts straight . . .

Post verses.

He was saved

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus says whoever believes is saved. And the eunuch obviously believed or he would have shunned baptism.

First of all, Jesus NEVER said that.
Apparently you weren't reading the conversation because that's NOT the argument.

Coreissue said that ALL who were baptized in Scripture were already saved BEFORE they were baptized.

I proved him wrong again . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Post verses.

He was saved

WRONG.
NO mention of the Holy Spirit.
NO mention of his being "saved" prior to Baptism.

Acts 8:34-38
The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

 

[CoreIssue]

WRONG.
NO mention of the Holy Spirit.
NO mention of his being "saved" prior to Baptism.

Acts 8:34-38
The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

Do you need a brick up the side of your head to see he believed and then asked to be baptize?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Do you need a brick up the side of your head to see he believed and then asked to be baptize?

Even the DEMONS believe (James 2:19).
Are they "saved", Einstein??

 

[CoreIssue]

Even the DEMONS believe (James 2:19).
Are they "saved", Einstein??

By that logic no one should ever be baptized.

 

[BreadOfLife]

By that logic no one should ever be baptized.

WRONG.
Faith = Belief + Obedience

It is MORE than simply "believing" . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

The Church teaches NO such nonsense.

The Pope ends state of limbo after 800 years - Telegraph
so i agree that the Church does not, but apparently the RCC did

aside all of your self-congratulatory and sanctimonious nonsense –

it is thick, innit

can you show me as SINGLE verse of Scripture that shows John the Baptist fully immersing ANYBODY in the River Jordan?

hey, two out of three ain't bad!

 

[quietthinker]

Man, you guys do carry on..... straining at knats and swallowing camels!

 

[Blueberry]

In Acts 8, the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading Scripture with Phillip and asked to be Baptized.
NO mention of his being "SAVED" before his Baptism.

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Are you suggesting that the eunuch heard the Gospel, rejected it and was then baptized by Phillip?

The ENTIRE households of Cornelius, the Philippian Jailer an Stephanas were baptized based on the faith of the HEAD of the household. “Households” have old and young – adults, small children – and YES, even BABIES.

Were they?

Cornelius
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

They which heard the word and believed were baptized.

Philippian Jailer
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Do you suggest that the command to believe when he spake unto him the word of the Lord was omitted when he later spoke to all that were in his house, before he baptized them?

Stephanas
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Are you suggesting that Paul who clearly here shows the priority to "preach the gospel" over baptizing, omitted it before he baptized the household of Stephanas?


Additionally, while certainly infants might well be part of a household, can you please kindly point them out here?

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Pope ends state of limbo after 800 years - Telegraph
so i agree that the Church does not, but apparently the RCC did

"Limbo" was NEVER a matter of doctrine. It was simply a position of reasoning where Scripture and tradition were silent.

Besides - YOU stated that it was a "Purgatory". Purgatory implies that they were being purged from impurity.
This was NEVER a description of the state of Limbo.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Are you suggesting that the eunuch heard the Gospel, rejected it and was then baptized by Phillip?

Again - that was NEVER the argument.
Go back and READ the initial post on this debate between myself and CoreIssue.

He stated that in EVERY instance in Scripture where a person is Baptized - they were "SAVED" prior to Baptism.
That's NOT what it says - or even IMPLIES about the Ethiopian Eunuch. It simply says that he was READING Scripture.

Were they?

Cornelius
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

They which heard the word and believed were baptized.

Philippian Jailer
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Do you suggest that the command to believe when he spake unto him the word of the Lord was omitted when he later spoke to all that were in his house, before he baptized them?

Stephanas
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Are you suggesting that Paul who clearly here shows the priority to "preach the gospel" over baptizing, omitted it before he baptized the household of Stephanas?

Additionally, while certainly infants might well be part of a household, can you please kindly point them out here?

I don't HAVE to because I'm NOT the one banning infants from Baptism based on Scripture.
YOU guys are.

The onus is on YOU to show ME that babies were not included in households because the Early Church Fathers ALL claim tjhat they learned from the Apostles that babies WERE to be included.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Man, you guys do carry on..... straining at knats and swallowing camels!

No - just getting to the TRUTH of what Scripture actually says - and NOT what tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually splintering Protestant sects claim for themselves . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

"Limbo" was NEVER a matter of doctrine. It was simply a position of reasoning where Scripture and tradition were silent.

Besides - YOU stated that it was a "Purgatory". Purgatory implies that they were being purged from impurity.
This was NEVER a description of the state of Limbo.

go with that then BoD, idc. It's all Cult of Sol to me bro

 

[BreadOfLife]

go with that then BoD, idc. It's all Cult of Sol to me bro

Yes - you always SAY that - but you have NO idea what you"re talking about . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes - you always SAY that - but you have NO idea what you"re talking about . . .

well, if you could just Quote them from Scripture you might edumacate me there, maybe you're right B
but anyone can google Constantine/Cult of Sol Invictus now, i mean it's not really much of a secret anymore, except to most Catholics i guess.

i don't judge Constantine either btw; the guy made it to Emperor, made it all the way to king, should be word enough for the wise i guess

 

[Marymog]

Some denominations baptize babies.

Catholics
Orthodox - Eastern and Oriental
Reformed
Lutheran
Anglicans
Presbytarians
Methodists
Nazarenes

source: Infant baptism - Wikipedia

John the Baptist baptized adults that wanted to have their sins forgiven.
Some denominations baptize adults as an outward sign of an inner change.

I speak only for the Catholic denomination here.
It's very interesting as to why they baptize babies as soon as possible.
It has to do with the imputation of sin. The CC did not always believe in baby baptism
in an official way. It was explained why babies were supposed to be baptized by Augustine of Hippo, 354 - 430 AD, he was the Bishop of Hippo (Africa) and was considered to be a very respected church theologian.

Believing that the grace of Christwas indispensable to human freedom, he helped formulate the doctrine of original sin

source: Augustine of Hippo - Wikipedia

IF the sin of Adam is imputed to all humans, perhaps babies SHOULD BE baptized.
IF the sin of Adam is not imputed to all humans, then why baptize babies?

Is Adam's sin imputed to all?
If so, wouldn't it be necessary to baptize a baby?

Revelation 21:27
and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Hi GG,

Why not baptize babies? Jesus said the kingdom of God was for them also: Luke 18:15-16.

I think the person who does NOT bring an infant to Him has to explain WHY they are NOT bringing the infant to Him. Not the person fulfilling Scripture and bringing an infant to Him

Can you show me one example in the NT of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ."? Since the NT was written many years after the death of Christ surely there would be at least ONE mention that a child made a decision to come to Christ. The only thing I can find is the leader of the house bringing children to Christ and having their entire household baptized.

Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

"having their entire household baptised" lol

i guess determinists cannot even read

 

[BreadOfLife]

well, if you could just Quote them from Scripture you might edumacate me there, maybe you're right B
but anyone can google Constantine/Cult of Sol Invictus now, i mean it's not really much of a secret anymore, except to most Catholics i guess.

i don't judge Constantine either btw; the guy made it to Emperor, made it all the way to king, should be word enough for the wise i guess

Ignorant people like YOU have been leveling charges of "paganism" against Christ's Church for 2 millenia now - ALWAYS without evidence and ALWAYS based on their own distortions.
Not only do you have ZERO evidence for your impotent claims - you don't even understand what "Sol Invictus" was all about . . .