Why Baptize a Baby?

[GodsGrace]

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

This is incredibly intellectually dishonest of you.
You know very well there are two types of "believe".
One is only mental and one is of the heart,,,you yourself have explained this.

@CoreIssue is correct about the Eheopian. He certainly was saved BEFORE he was baptized; as the following clearly shows:

Acts 8:26-39
26But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, “Get up and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.)
27So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28and he [the Etheopian] was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.”
30Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:
“HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER;
AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT,
SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH.

33“IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY;
WHO WILL RELATE HIS GENERATION?
FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH.”

34The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?”
35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
37[And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
38And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
39When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.

Verse 37 is missing from some translations. It might have been added for clarification. Even if we dismiss verse 37, we still have verse 39 that states the Ethiopian went away joyful after having the gospel explained to him.

 

[GodsGrace]

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

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

 

[BreadOfLife]

His parents were making a Covenant with God. Part of the Covenant was FOR THE PARENTS TO RAISE THEIR CHILD ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD...and to SPEAK THE WORD OF GOD TO THE CHILDS EARS....
Hello....THE BABY SAID NOTHING...No vow of BELIEF, NO vow of Commitment...
Dude don't you know the difference between a Parent making a vow to the Lord, and an Individual child making a vow to the Lord?

The SAME is true for Baptism.

This is why the ENTIRE FAMILIES of Cornelius, Stephanas and the Philippian Jailer were Baptized - including the servants.
This is why the Early Church Fathers said the FOLLOWING:

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: INFANTS, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
"Bapize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to INFANTS. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to INFANTS. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an INFANT child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is incredibly intellectually dishonest of you.
You know very well there are two types of "believe".
One is only mental and one is of the heart,,,you yourself have explained this.

@CoreIssue is correct about the Eheopian. He certainly was saved BEFORE he was baptized; as the following clearly shows:

Acts 8:26-39
26But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, “Get up and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.)
27So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28and he [the Etheopian] was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.”
30Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:
“HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER;
AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT,
SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH.

33“IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY;
WHO WILL RELATE HIS GENERATION?
FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH.”

34The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?”
35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
37[And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
38And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
39When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.

Verse 37 is missing from some translations. It might have been added for clarification. Even if we dismiss verse 37, we still have verse 39 that states the Ethiopian went away joyful after having the gospel explained to him.

This isn't "dishonest" at ALL.

The demons certainly believe in Jesus - just as much as YOU do. THEIR problem is DISOBEDIENCE. They have ALL the "belief" that a Christian has - but they DON'T have FAITH.

As I have stated to you on NUMEROUS occasions - FAITH= Belief + Obedience.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Seriously...?
What is so hard for you to comprehend the Parents making a VOW, is not the Child making a VOW?

Children are GIFTS to Parents.
Parents making a VOW to the Lord concerning the Gifts the Lord has GIVEN the Parents...IS the Parents making a VOW.....not the KID!



Why ask me, WHAT YOU PROCLAIM?

Have you FORGOTTEN, you said you received the Holy Spirit when YOUR PARENTS DECIDED TO HAVE A PRIEST sprinkle water on your head, and that you were a baby and don't remember it?

I disagreed with you having received the Holy Spirit then....and still disagree.....so why ask me to provide an answer, that agrees with what you claimed?

Weird!

Glory to God,
Taken

WHY are you so afraid of answering this SIMPLE question about circumcision that I have asked repeatedly??

HOW was circumcision valid if it was done by the word of the Parents??
HOW does a person validly enter into a Covenant with God when their PARENTS decide FOR them??
HOW does it work for circumcision and NOT Baptism??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thank you for sharing your Devil's advocacy.

Satan was cast out and down from his first estate TO Earth for THINKING...
(Remember...Satan didn't ACTUALLY RISE up above God!!
Remember ...Satan didn't ACTUALLY SAY what he was thinking).

And pretty much looks like YOUR ABSOLUTELY FALSE comment is smoke and mirrors.

Glory to God,
Taken

WRONG.
Satan refused to SUBMIT to God.

A person with SSA can submit to God and never submit to their proclivity - and remain FREE of that sin.
A Heterosexual who doesn't engage in fornication is the EXACT SAME example.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hi CI,I hope someone answered this...
Just saw it.
Actually there is no such place as a limbo for infants. In fact, there's no such place as limbo.
This is a myth that was believed by catholics, but which, unfortunately was never corrected by the CC and thus many believe this is Catholic doctrine.
CCC no. 404 states that Adam's sin was propagated to all of mankind since he was the representative of the human race. Since this sin was propagated, or imputed, it then became necessary for every baby born to be baptized ASAP so that he could go to heaven in case of death. The church believed, at the time of Augustine and thereafter, that any baby not baptized could not enter heaven if he died. I would suppose that the idea of a limbo was a way for parents to comfort themselves.

The CC has not taken the position that even if a baby dies unbaptized, he will go to heaven because we must trust that God is merciful.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.


Augustine's view on Original Sin:

Christianity regards baptism as the remission of all sins, so his [Augustine] slate was wiped clean, but the consequences of a lifestyle that he [Augustine]bitterly rued remained with him. He regarded human nature as sinful and attributed this sin to the first ancestors, who passed down hereditary sin. Humans were therefore in a state of total depravity and, according to Augustine, were condemned to Hell unless they were baptized, even unbaptized children.

source: Concepts of Original Sin in Early Christianity: Augustine vs. Pelagius

And now - YOU'RE lying.
the idea of "Limbo" was NEVER a matter of Catholic doctrine.

It was simply a way of reasoning what might have happened to unbaptized babies because Scripture and Tradition were silent on the matter.
The Church abandoned the idea.

 

[Marymog]

You cannot show me any child being baptized. You have to know and understand it differs from good and evil know and understand what Christ did, before you can repent.

Ummmm....are you suggesting there were no children in the entire household of Acts 10 and Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:13-18?

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."?

Can you show me from historical writings from your Christian brothers were they say NOT to baptize babies?

Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

Do you respect me?

Spoiler alert: I am not Catholic. I respect Catholic because I respect ALL faiths. I personally do NOT believe that the Catholic Church is Christ's one personal True Church on this earth. I PASSIONATELY disagree with many Catholic doctrines such as infant baptism, paper authority, Marian doctrines, etc. I respect that many Catholics are fantastic Christians. I'm not going to attack anyone's beliefs or misrepresent them-- respect and letting people explain themselves is a big thing for me.

Do you respect me even though I passionately (but respectfully) reject Catholicism? Or do you view me a just another splinter off the Christ's true Catholic church?

As I indicated in my last post - I respect people of ALL faiths - except for those who LIE - like the anti-Catholics here.

Now - YOU have claimed that you are NOT a Protestant and you are NOT a Catholic - yet you claim to be a Christian. I still don't know why you're so afraid to divulge WHICH denomination or faith tradition you come from - but the ONLY option left is Orthodox.

HOWEVER - you can't be Orthodox because you reject doctrines like Infant Baptism, Marian doctrines, etc.
So - either you ARE a Protestant and you're simply being dishonest for whatever reason - or you belong to some other quasi-Christian sect like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Whatever the case - I think it's cowardly of you to hide this fact . . .

 

[Jane_Doe22]

As I indicated in my last post - I respect people of ALL faiths - except for those who LIE - like the anti-Catholics here.

Yes, I heard your words. But I also hear your tone which says a completely different story-- that you disdain non-Catholics. Hence why I asking.

Do you actually respect someone who's not a Catholic?

Now - YOU have claimed that you are NOT a Protestant and you are NOT a Catholic - yet you claim to be a Christian. I still don't know why you're so afraid to divulge WHICH denomination or faith tradition you come from - but the ONLY option left is Orthodox.

HOWEVER - you can't be Orthodox because you reject doctrines like Infant Baptism, Marian doctrines, etc.
So - either you ARE a Protestant and you're simply being dishonest for whatever reason - or you belong to some other quasi-Christian sect like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Whatever the case - I think it's cowardly of you to hide this fact . . .

^ This is an irrelevant red harring and personal attack. Again, your actions/tone are testifying that you don't respect non-Catholics. Hence why I pointing this out: if you truly do respect non-Catholics, please adjust your tone/actions so they match what your words say.

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary,
Again the foundational question here is "why is any person baptized and what does that baptism accomplish", and then rest of the debated questions are built on that. Since this is a question that cannot be adequately answered with the Bible alone, we're left with his vs her interpretation of the Bible that goes no where. A person could back it up to the bigger question of "which sources/traditions should we accept", but that brings in a whole bunch more his vs her opinions.

Hi,

A person is baptized to wash away or forgiveness of their sins and because it saves you....Just like scripture says.

I agree, it can’t be adequately answered with the Bible alone that is why sola Scriptura is not biblical. We have to rely on, as you say “his vs her interpretation”. I would think that the people that lived closest to the time of Christ, like the ECF’s and other historical Christian writings, would know best. Wouldn’t they know better then the men of the Reformation (actually men who disagreed with the reformers) who started this entire debacle of denying infant baptism when it had been practiced for 2,000 years?

Can you historically show me where our Christian forefathers began this opossition to infant baptism?

Historical Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

Please post a verse showing that someone was baptized who did not believe.
Everyone who went to John the Baptist WANTED to be a servant to God and wanted to be "saved".

I've ALREADY shown that with the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8.

Acts 8:35-38
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

The demons believe just as strongly about God as Christians do.
The ONLY difference between the Ethiopian Eunuch and the Demons is that the Eunuch was BAPTIZED - and THAT is when he was forgiven.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, I heard your words. But I also hear your tone which says a completely different story-- that you disdain non-Catholics. Hence why I asking.

Do you actually respect someone who's not a Catholic?

^ This is an irrelevant red harring and personal attack. Again, your actions/tone are testifying that you don't respect non-Catholics. Hence why I pointing this out: if you truly do respect non-Catholics, please adjust your tone/actions so they match what your words say.

You continue to play this gamer and ask me the SAME question repeatedly because you're afraid to divulge your denomination.
NOT really sure why - but I'm bored with it.

Let me know when you want to have a grown-up conversation - and leave all of the immaturity behind . . .

 

[Jane_Doe22]

You continue to play this gamer and ask me the SAME question repeatedly because you're afraid to divulge your denomination.

BECAUSE DENOMINATION DOESN"T MATTER!!!

You'd rather chase your red herring of denomination labels instead of instead of actually talking to ME. A person. Not a denominational label. It's incredibly disrespectful.

 

[GodsGrace]

And now - YOU'RE lying.
the idea of "Limbo" was NEVER a matter of Catholic doctrine.

It was simply a way of reasoning what might have happened to unbaptized babies because Scripture and Tradition were silent on the matter.
The Church abandoned the idea.

Maybe you should actually read my posts.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Hi,

A person is baptized to wash away or forgiveness of their sins and because it saves you....Just like scripture says.

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

I agree, it can’t be adequately answered with the Bible alone that is why sola Scriptura is not biblical. We have to rely on, as you say “his vs her interpretation”. I would think that the people that lived closest to the time of Christ, like the ECF’s and other historical Christian writings, would know best. Wouldn’t they know better then the men of the Reformation (actually men who disagreed with the reformers) who started this entire debacle of denying infant baptism when it had been practiced for 2,000 years?

Can you historically show me where our Christian forefathers began this opossition to infant baptism?.

Historical Mary

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.

 

[CoreIssue]

Ummmm....are you suggesting there were no children in the entire household of Acts 10 and Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:13-18?

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."?

Can you show me from historical writings from your Christian brothers were they say NOT to baptize babies?

Curious Mary

You are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

Remember, back then children were not treated as adults. They did not count on significant issues.

My family has been in this country for centuries. Documented back to 1800. My last name is a dit name dating back to the old Hudson Bay company and French. And being 1/2 Indian even further back. Not a common name and not to be found in Europe except for a couple of expats. They were not catholic and did not baptize children.

Stop asking for negative proofs. They are unacceptable in law, debate and logic.

As far as not baptizing infants, how about the Amish, Mennonites, RE Baptists, part show bad news, Pentecostals and more.

In fact, the first three in that was into remote areas of Europe and later to this country to escape catholic persecution.

 

[GodsGrace]

This isn't "dishonest" at ALL.

The demons certainly believe in Jesus - just as much as YOU do. THEIR problem is DISOBEDIENCE. They have ALL the "belief" that a Christian has - but they DON'T have FAITH.

As I have stated to you on NUMEROUS occasions - FAITH= Belief + Obedience.

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.

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

I also would like to hear Mary's response to your question .

 

[GodsGrace]

I've ALREADY shown that with the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8.

Acts 8:35-38
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

The demons believe just as strongly about God as Christians do.
The ONLY difference between the Ethiopian Eunuch and the Demons is that the Eunuch was BAPTIZED - and THAT is when he was forgiven.

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.