What is the significance of infant baptism?

ExTiff said:

And you do? Supposedly! That could be certainty or just arrogance.

Click to expand...

Or it could be what The Word of God teaches.

ItIsFinished! said:

Or it could be what The Word of God teaches.

Click to expand...

And do you think you fully understand everything contained therein pertaining to baptism?

I wrote a long post on baptism at my blog (http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/20...-baptism.html). I hope you can convince them to find a priest. Remember, baptism is necessary for salvation, so the child really needs to be baptized as soon as possible.

John 3:3-5 "Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

bougti said:

I wrote a long post on baptism at my blog (http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/20...-baptism.html). I hope you can convince them to find a priest. Remember, baptism is necessary for salvation, so the child really needs to be baptized as soon as possible.

John 3:3-5 "Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Click to expand...

No.
Baptism is not necessary for salvation whatsoever.
To teach that is misrepresenting God .
Taking Scripture out of context will not back up your claims that it is necessary.
This falsehood that it is necessary for salvation is unacceptable and flat out wrong.

bougti said:

I wrote a long post on baptism at my blog (http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/20...-baptism.html). I hope you can convince them to find a priest. Remember, baptism is necessary for salvation, so the child really needs to be baptized as soon as possible.

John 3:3-5 "Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Click to expand...

Has it ever occurred to you that Jesus was not actually referring to baptism here. At the time of this statement of his, infants were not baptised, they were circumcised. This all about 'birth', being born, physically and spiritually. The first sign that labour has commenced is the breaking of the waters, (Physical birth). Spiritual birth is necessary but not so obviously indicated. Thus the references to the invisibility of the wind, ('wind' is the self same Greek word as 'spirit'), hence the allusion.

You seem to be confusing the symbolism of baptism with the reality of physical and spiritual births. We all, (except in the case of a Caesarean entry into the world), are born of water, when the waters break. Not all however are born also of the Spirit. That is known as Regeneration and is a matter of transformation of 'the heart'. That is what water baptism of infants symbolically represents. In the sure and certain hope of, according to The Church's faith in the Covenant promises of God in scripture to the child's believing parents.

It is certainly not a guarantee of salvation for the infant regardless of faith in God's promises. Neither is it a superstitious 'inoculation' against judgment and damnation by an arbitrarily vengeful God. God loves all his children and would have every one of them redeemed, regenerated, sanctified and glorified, if only they will cooperate with Him.

It is only when each child of God finally 'knows which way the wind blows' and begins to cooperate with God in their path to salvation, that 'regeneration' can be seen to have actually taken place.
.

bougti said:

I wrote a long post on baptism at my blog (http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/20...-baptism.html). I hope you can convince them to find a priest. Remember, baptism is necessary for salvation, so the child really needs to be baptized as soon as possible.

John 3:3-5 "Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Click to expand...

John 3:3-5 "Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."



Pnr Status TextNow VPN

bougti said:

John 3:3-5 "Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Click to expand...

Does repeating what you said twice make your interpretation and your opinion more valid?

Of water AND the Holy Ghost. Not of water so as to GET the Holy Ghost. So water baptism alone does nothing but symbolize sacramentally the imperceptible operation of The Holy Spirit. That baptism, (the one baptism we believe in), 'as of fire', can come at any time in a persons life, and is entirely dependent upon God's timing and the persons desire for it.

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Matt.3:11

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Luke 11:9-13.
.

ItIsFinished! said:

No.
Baptism is not necessary for salvation whatsoever.
To teach that is misrepresenting God .
Taking Scripture out of context will not back up your claims that it is necessary.
This falsehood that it is necessary for salvation is unacceptable and flat out wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes actually Baptism is a part of the Born Again experience spoken of by Jesus. You see Baptism in the conversions in the book of Acts. And Jesus himself said, "preach the gospel, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".
However infant baptism is not scriptural or proper. Baptisms occurred in scripture after repentance of sins and was for the remission of those sins according to Acts2:38. Babies cant believe in Jesus neither can they repent of sins. infant baptism is a man made doctrine and not practiced in the first century church.

New Birth said:

Yes actually Baptism is a part of the Born Again experience spoken of by Jesus. You see Baptism in the conversions in the book of Acts. And Jesus himself said, "preach the gospel, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".
However infant baptism is not scriptural or proper. Baptisms occurred in scripture after repentance of sins and was for the remission of those sins according to Acts2:38. Babies cant believe in Jesus neither can they repent of sins. infant baptism is a man made doctrine and not practiced in the first century church.

Click to expand...

You quite obviously are unaware of the fundamentally scriptural reasons for baptising the infants of believers. Not everyone does understand the whole of scripture. You can be excused for that.

Babies cant believe in Jesus neither can they repent of sins. infant baptism is a man made doctrine and not practiced in the first century church.

Click to expand...

Infants are not baptised on the supposition that they understand anything. Receiving the Holy Spirit does not depend upon the adequacy of anyone's intellect. If it did there would be many excluded through lack of mental ability.

Infants are baptised on the understanding that God has made promises in scripture to the parent(s) of believers, that their children will come to know Him in due course, all being well. This is an assurance based upon faith in the Word of God, not a 'man made doctrine' as you seem to have been indoctrinated to believe.

Your assertions that it is a 'man made doctrine' are evidence of your ignorance of scripture generally and covenant theology particularly. What is inexcusable is your arrogance in assuming that your understanding of the scriptures is superior to a faithful church that has studied it for millennia.
.

ExTiff said:

You quite obviously are unaware of the fundamentally scriptural reasons for baptising the infants of believers. Not everyone does understand the whole of scripture. You can be excused for that.

Your assertions that it is a 'man made doctrine' are evidence of your ignorance of scripture generally and covenant theology particularly. What is inexcusable is your arrogance in assuming that your understanding of the scriptures is superior to a faithful church that has studied it for millennia.
.

Click to expand...

Not so. You will not find one instance or refference to infant baptism in the scriptures. Baptism is for remission of sins. The Catholics have not been studying it for millennia, they created the doctrine of infant baptism and have been forcing its dogma on the unlearned for millennia. Show me in the Bible the doctrine of infant baptism. As a matter of fact if you remember Philip refused to baptize until there was faith in Christ.

New Birth said:

Not so. You will not find one instance or refference to infant baptism in the scriptures. Baptism is for remission of sins. The Catholics have not been studying it for millennia, they created the doctrine of infant baptism and have been forcing its dogma on the unlearned for millennia. Show me in the Bible the doctrine of infant baptism. As a matter of fact if you remember Philip refused to baptize until there was faith in Christ.

Click to expand...

Neither will you find one instance or reference to women receiving communion in the scriptures. Are you going to ban that too?

Show me in the Bible the doctrine of infant baptism.

Click to expand...

Do your own research.

Try reading "The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism" by Pierre Ch. Marcel ISBN 0 227 6785 9

It was not written by a Catholic it was written by a Calvinist. I am not a Catholic I am Anglican and therefore Reformed.

My guess is that you come from a doctrinaly 'Baptist' school of thought. You have your own take of the meaning of scripture.
.

ExTiff said:

Neither will you find one instance or reference to women receiving communion in the scriptures. Are you going to ban that too?



Do your own research.

Try reading "The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism" by Pierre Ch. Marcel ISBN 0 227 6785 9
.

Click to expand...

Not so again. There is no need to search extrabiblical text created to support the teaching. It is apparent Catholics do not know the purpose of baptism. Where is your scriptural support?

New Birth said:

Not so again. There is no need to search extrabiblical text created to support the teaching. It is apparent Catholics do not know the purpose of baptism. Where is your scriptural support?

Click to expand...

As I said, I am not Catholic and it is not my job to teach you how to read the scriptures. Remain ignorant if you wish, just don't foist your opinions on others as if you are the only expert in understanding scripture.
.

ExTiff said:

As I said, I am not Catholic and it is not my job to teach you how to read the scriptures. Remain ignorant if you wish, just don't foist your opinions on others as if you are the only expert in understanding scripture.
.

Click to expand...

You can't produce scriptures to support your belief. Your comments are humorous though.

ExTiff said:

Neither will you find one instance or reference to women receiving communion in the scriptures. Are you going to ban that too?



Do your own research.

Try reading "The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism" by Pierre Ch. Marcel ISBN 0 227 6785 9

It was not written by a Catholic it was written by a Calvinist. I am not a Catholic I am Anglican and therefore Reformed.

My guess is that you come from a doctrinaly 'Baptist' school of thought. You have your own take of the meaning of scripture.
.

Click to expand...

I'm not Baptist.

New Birth said:

I'm not Baptist.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not but your theology is.

You can't produce scriptures to support your belief. Your comments are humorous though.

Click to expand...

There is a distinct difference between 'can't produce scriptures to support your belief' and 'won't produce scriptures to support your belief'. In my case it is the latter which is applicable. Surely no one should think they know everything concerning baptism that is contained in or may be reasoned from the scriptures.

There is no shame in admitting ignorance concerning the scriptural foundation upon which infant baptism is predicated and administered within the Reformed Churches. The Roman Catholic Church is entirely another matter. I can appreciate your view that their theological reasoning on this issue and many others is not entirely supported by scripture.

You are profoundly mistaken however in merely assuming that the Reformed Churches baptise infants on the same basis and according to the same theological reasoning as the Roman Catholic Church. They don't.

The scriptures lead in sundry places and provide us with sufficient knowledge to confidently baptise the infants of believing parent(s). Clearly you are unaware of the line of reasoning which allows this and is fully supported by the scriptures themselves, when studied in depth, rather than merely skimming across them looking for prohibitions or allowances of a practice performed in the Church of Christ for two thousand years, and finding none.

And even you must admit that you are completely unable to find a single Apostolic prohibition of infant baptising, in either the New or Old Testaments. We Reformed can, I assure you, ably justify our reasons for doing so from scripture. It is just that I am not prepared to expose myself to the futility and frustration of trying to convince someone who so clearly already thinks they know everything there is to know about an issue such as this.

It is clear to me that you are not wanting scripture from me to learn anything about my doctrinal position. It seems more like you are just determined to prove me wrong and yourself right, confident of using scripture to achieve your objective. That is not the right way to use scripture.
.

New Birth said:

Not so again. There is no need to search extrabiblical text created to support the teaching. It is apparent Catholics do not know the purpose of baptism. Where is your scriptural support?

Click to expand...

Is that your judgement on Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, etc., too? --in short, most Christians of most denominations?

ExTiff said:

Perhaps not but your theology is.



There is a distinct difference between 'can't produce scriptures to support your belief' and 'won't produce scriptures to support your belief'. In my case it is the latter which is applicable. Surely no one should think they know everything concerning baptism that is contained in or may be reasoned from the scriptures.

There is no shame in admitting ignorance concerning the scriptural foundation upon which infant baptism is predicated and administered within the Reformed Churches. The Roman Catholic Church is entirely another matter. I can appreciate your view that their theological reasoning on this issue and many others is not entirely supported by scripture.

You are profoundly mistaken however in merely assuming that the Reformed Churches baptise infants on the same basis and according to the same theological reasoning as the Roman Catholic Church. They don't.

The scriptures lead in sundry places and provide us with sufficient knowledge to confidently baptise the infants of believing parent(s). Clearly you are unaware of the line of reasoning which allows this and is fully supported by the scriptures themselves, when studied in depth, rather than merely skimming across them looking for prohibitions or allowances of a practice performed in the Church of Christ for two thousand years, and finding none.

And even you must admit that you are completely unable to find a single Apostolic prohibition of infant baptising, in either the New or Old Testaments. We Reformed can, I assure you, ably justify our reasons for doing so from scripture. It is just that I am not prepared to expose myself to the futility and frustration of trying to convince someone who so clearly already thinks they know everything there is to know about an issue such as this.

It is clear to me that you are not wanting scripture from me to learn anything about my doctrinal position. It seems more like you are just determined to prove me wrong and yourself right, confident of using scripture to achieve your objective. That is not the right way to use scripture.
.

Click to expand...

The question of the post is "what is the significants of infant baptism" I say it is not found in scriptures and its origins are man made regardless of by whom. But instead of supporting the doctrine you defend the religion. I say the scriptures teach baptism is for the remission of sins and must be performed to an individual that has faith in Christ. Again can you provide scriptures that support your doctrine? The answer is no. Why? Because its man made. Also sprinkling is not baptism but that's another subject.

New Birth said:

The question of the post is "what is the significants of infant baptism" I say it is not found in scriptures and its origins are man made regardless of by whom. But instead of supporting the doctrine you defend the religion. I say the scriptures teach baptism is for the remission of sins and must be performed to an individual that has faith in Christ. Again can you provide scriptures that support your doctrine? The answer is no. Why? Because its man made. Also sprinkling is not baptism but that's another subject.

Click to expand...

The fact, however, is that scripture does seem to support infant baptism. There are a variety of reasons people give for restricting baptism to people of older years; but it is not the case that "it is not found in scriptures." My guess is that you are aware of that but that you don't consider the evidence to be persuasive.

New Birth said:

The question of the post is "what is the significants of infant baptism" I say it is not found in scriptures and its origins are man made regardless of by whom. But instead of supporting the doctrine you defend the religion. I say the scriptures teach baptism is for the remission of sins and must be performed to an individual that has faith in Christ. Again can you provide scriptures that support your doctrine? The answer is no. Why? Because its man made. Also sprinkling is not baptism but that's another subject.

Click to expand...

You say it is not found in the scriptures, (just as communion being received by women is not found in scripture either, but that is not a valid argument for disallowing either practice by the church). Your use of scripture, treating it as a rule book for either allowing or forbidding what the church can do, (according to your less than comprehensive understanding of it), is crude and ill reasoned.

See Post #16 'here', for 'clickable' scripture references.

There are two classes of people to whom baptism is applied, namely adults and infants
a. Adult baptism: Baptism is intended for believers and their seed. In the words of the institution Jesus undoubtedly had in mind primarily the baptism of adults, for it was only with these that the disciples could begin in their missionary labours. His instruction implies that baptism had to be preceded by a profession of faith, Mark.16:16. On the day of Pentecost those that received the word of Peter were baptized, Acts.2:41; cf. also Acts.8:37 (Auth. Ver.); 16:31-34. The Church should require a profession of faith from all adults seeking baptism. When such a profession is made, this is accepted by the Church at its face value, unless there are good reasons to doubt its sincerity.

b. Infant Baptism: Baptists deny the right of infant baptism, since children cannot exercise faith, and since the New Testament contains no command to baptize children and does not record a single instance of such baptism. Yet this does not prove it un-biblical. Since the Jewish nation had previously understood infants to be included with their parents under The Old Covenant, it would be unreasonable to exclude them under the New, especially since the New is a 'Better Covenant' and 'More Gracious' than the old. Jews would have continued to believe their infants were covenant bound from birth and would have continued to circumcise 8 day old males even under the New Covenant. Circumcision was replaced by baptism, as scripture attests, yet there is not a single word of Apostolic disapproval anywhere in the New Testament against the baptizing of an infant. If it were frowned upon there should be objections in the NT, but there are none. There are examples of whole families being baptized though, and though infants are not specifically mentioned, it is unlikely that there were none or that Jews who entered the New Covenant would have allowed them to be excluded. There are also no recorded incidences of an adult or adolescent child of believing parents being baptized, anywhere in the new testament, yet we know that infant baptism was not only widely practiced in the church within 150 to 200 years of the Apostolic church, and well before the closing of the canon of scripture, and there are no objections raised by any authority against its practice.

(1) The scriptural basis for infant baptism: Infant baptism is not based on a single passage of scripture, but on a series of considerations. The covenant made with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant, though it also had a national aspect. Rom.4:16-18; Gal.3:8, 9, 14. This covenant is still in force and is essentially the same as the "new covenant" of the present dispensation, Rom.4:13-18; Gal.3:15-18; Heb.6:13-18. Children shared in the blessings of the covenant, received the sign of circumcision, and were reckoned as part of the congregation of Israel, 2 Chron.20:13; Joel.2:16. In the New Testament baptism is substituted for circumcision as the sign and seal of entrance into the covenant, Acts.2:39; Col.2:11, 12. The "New Covenant" is represented in scripture as more gracious than the old, Isa.54:13; Jer.31:34; Heb.8:11, and therefore would hardly exclude children. This is also unlikely in view of such passages as Matt.19:14; Acts.2:39; 1 Cor.7:14. Moreover, whole households were baptized and it is unlikely that these contained no children. Acts.16:15; 16:33; 1 Cor.1:16.

(2) The ground and operation of infant baptism. In reformed circles some hold that children are baptized on the ground of a presumptive regeneration, that is, on the assumption, (not the assurance), that they are regenerated. Others take the position that they are baptized on the ground of the all comprehensive covenant promise of God, which also includes the promise of regeneration, (immediately or in due course). This is my preferred view. The covenant promise affords the only certain and objective ground for the baptism of infants. But if the question is asked, how infant baptism can function as a means of grace to strengthen spiritual life, the answer is that it can at the very moment of its administration strengthen the regenerate life, if already present in the child, and can strengthen faith later on when the significance of baptism is more clearly understood. Its operation is not necessarily limited to the very moment of its administration.

Having gone to the trouble of explaining to you the scriptural case for baptizing infants of believing parent(s), I hope you are not expecting any further response from me if you try refuting it or arguing the toss. Just admit that you do not understand everything there is to know about baptism but at least you now know a bit more. I suggest that you actually take the time to look up all the scripture references to confirm that they are indeed actually there and thus expand your understanding of the subject.
.