I'm not dodging. All I'm saying is that infant Baptism is never prohibited, and the Sacred Tradition of the Church has always allowed it. You can't prove otherwise, and our logical conclusion that households included children in many cases is valid.
Just because it was never prohibited doesn't make it right.
Paul never says baptism is a replacement for circumcision in those verses. He is making a comparison between spiritual circumcision (circumsion of the heart) and baptism, which are both in Christ.
In light of Colossians, I think I've made the case.
No you haven't.
The arguments are not from silence at all, they're from the Fathers of the Church
The fathers believed different things and were not infallible like the scripture.
The Scriptures >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Early Church Fathers
as well as from the Bible.
No, infant baptism cannot be found anywhere in the bible.
Catholic professor of theology, Haegelbacher, writes, "This controversy has shown that it is not possible to bring in absolute proof of infant baptism by basing one's argument on the Bible."
A German theologian named Friedrich Schleiermacher, wrote, “All traces of infant baptism which are asserted to be found in the New Testament must first be inserted there.”
So if these theologians say infant baptism is eisegesis then you have no credible argument for infant baptism being in the bible.
Baptism is a work of God and not primarily a work of humans.
God's work happens before baptism, baptism is the physical work of humans to glorify God's work.
We listen to the words of Jesus (Matt 19:13-14)"Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them.
Mark 10 expands on this:
And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased,
Matt 19:13-14 is simply about the disciples trying to physically stop children coming to Jesus. This has nothing to do with infant baptism. In fact it says Jesus placed his hands on them and blessed them but says nothing about baptising them. Jesus and the scriptures silence on Infant baptism is deafening.
Infant baptism is a fact of the Church because it is based on the concept of vicarious faith-the idea that the faith of one person can stand in fo and benefit another.
Someone's salvation cannot automatically save someone else. They need to get saved themselves.
For example, Jesus raised Jairus' daughter on the basis of Jairus' faith, not the daughter's.
This makes no sense. Of course Jesus wouldn't have raised for the daughter's faith, she was dead!
Acts 16:25-34, the apostles acknowledged that the entire household could be saved on the basis of one man's faith. Then they baptized the entire family.
The end of Acts 16:34 Cleary states that his whole household believed.
So you believe because that one man had faith and his entire family could have lived like devils, getting drunk, fornicating, but they would have still been saved?! That's horrible theology.
There is no logical reason to suppose that the household didn't have children.
This is not true, there are several logical reasons.
. They were newly married and had no children yet.
. They were incapable of having children.
. All their children were now adults.
As above, Baptism is a work of God, so we said the same thing.
No, the work of God has already happened if you are being baptised. Baptism is a physical act done by man to signify a spiritual change inside.
So once you're baptized, you can never sin again? Amazing!
I never said, "you never sin again." You're putting words in my mouth.
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16
Acts 22: 16 is not talking about one specific sin which you are talking about (Original sin) It is talking about sins in general, which is what I meant by all sins.
Which part? You quoted a whole section of text.
No, there's the baptism of desire, too. God IS Merciful.
There is only one baptism in scripture. There are those who are baptised and there are those who are not baptised. There is no in-between.
This is like the "big S Saint" and "little s saint" thing. the Catholic church has invented an entire new category that does not exist in scripture.
Did I say something that's not true?
You said: "Not mundane. If you don't feed a child properly, he will die." Post #852. You seem to be saying mundane meant not feeding a child properly, which is not true.
Not feeding a child properly and killing him is serious.
I know.
So, we believe, is not baptizing a child.
You believe not baptising an infant will kill them?(!)
No, I don't, which refutes your Romans "All have sinned and fall short..."
Actually science has shown babies can deceive and manipulate their parents.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...-lie-before-they-learn-to-talk/article570435/
Neither can severely mentally handicapped.
Yes they can, they just may not be aware what they did was wrong.
But they all STILL have Original Sin, which is removed by baptism.
They still have original sin which would mean they fall short of the glory of God which would mean this proves Romans.
After serious study, yes.
From logic, yes we can.
Using logical fallacies (which you have admitted to) is the opposite of using logic.
To answer both questions, the Holy Spirit, who conferred the information on the Church Fathers, and the Third Council of Carthage in 254.
So show me this information. and those who were present in Acts 4:4 that were also present that were also present at the Third council of Carthage.
Considering that Christianity wasn't legal, that the Bible speaks only of the first generation of the Christian Church,
What does it matter if it was illegal, we still have the scriptures.
which would be mostly adult,
Again, how do you know it was mostly and not only adults?
we have to rely on the second generation and past.
No we don't.
I will never try to limit God's Word to what's written in the Bible. Sorry.
Lots of other people have done the same as you and have fallen into cults.
No, but we have it from our forefathers that they were. In fact, many of those who wrote after the apostles were taught as children by the apostles, and were baptized by them.
See above.
' The host of German and front ranked theologues and scholars of the church of England, the Church of England, the Anglican Church, which believes in infant baptism, a host of their scholars have united to affirm, not only the absence of infant baptism from the New Testament, but from apostolic and post apostolic times. It isn't in the New Testament and it didn't exist in the earliest church. They believe it arose around the second or third century. Lutheran professor, Kurt Aland, after intensive study of infant baptism says, "There is no definite proof of the practice until after the third century," and he says, "This cannot be contested."
