- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Says who?1. In Romans 6 the symbol is stated to be that of death burial and resurrection - only full water baptism does that.
So then why don't you believe John 6 literally? Pick and choose!2. In the Gospels "and coming up out of the water" Jesus was baptized by John and I know of no actual denomination that thinks John "sprinkled rose pedals on Jesus".
But parents may speak for their children until they're of an appropriate age. And we continue the education of children until that age, and deepen what Baptism actually does.3. 1 Peter 3 makes it clear that Baptism must include the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" not even possible for infants.
See above. But what much an infant repent of???4. Acts 2 makes it clear that repentance is a prerequisite for baptism - not even possible for infants.
Except that it's a requirement for the next stages-First Holy Communion and Confirmation...5. Even the RCC admits that there were times when the early church found no reason at all for baptism of infants. It did nothing.
It's the power of the Holy Spirit that does all that. Holy Water is a sacramentAL, not a sacrament.6. The value of infant baptism requires the imagined powers/holy water/magic-sacrament idea that something the priest or the water does - makes a change in the infant outside of any choice to accept Christ, or repent, or appeal for forgiveness... A foundational concept to the practice with not a hint of justification in scripture.
in Christ,
Bob
Upvote
0