Infant Baptism, why do you reject it?

[Borealis]

That's not what sola scriptura is or means and I wish you Catholics would stop misrepresenting it every chance you get even though many sola scriptura proponants here have time and time again explained it.

Just like many Catholic proponents have explained:

a) the veneration (not worship) of Mary
b) the title of 'Mother of God'
c) the Real Presence of the Eucharist
d) the validity of infant baptism
e) Peter's status as the first Bishop of Rome and head of the Church
f) the visible Church
g) salvation by grace alone, not faith + works
h) the Church's historical defense of the Bible and biblical truth
i) the meaning of praying to the saints
j) the existence of Purgatory

and lots of other Catholic doctrines. I don't see people passively accepting any of those, do you?

Sola scriptura is a means of norming, it does not mean one can believe whatever they want or on however they feel.

FallenDaughter, please disreguard Borealis's post.

By all means, disregard it. Go ahead and ignore the serious contradictions in what you're saying. You claim to reject infant baptism because it's not explicitly described in the Bible. I merely pointed out nearly a dozen things that all Christians are expected to believe that are NOT explicitly described in the Bible; they all have to be inferred, or taken from Sacred Tradition.

Sola Scriptura may be a means of norming, but the historical results of it have proven it to be both weak and false.

 

[Borealis]

First, it should be noted that no where in the New Testament a new born baby Baptized at any time.
Second, Baptismal is a form of free will, where one comes to the Lord with understanding and acceptance. A new born baby can’t make a choice like that, and is presumed innocent in the eyes of God. Though we are all born into sin, a child has no knowledge of such things and is innocent until such time of awareness of sin.

So you're saying that Baptism (which is clearly stated to be necessary throughout the New Testament) is a choice made by us, and not a gift from God? In other words, it's a work of human beings? So we're saved by works, then?

 

[FaithInTheWord]

So you're saying that Baptism (which is clearly stated to be necessary throughout the New Testament) is a choice made by us, and not a gift from God? In other words, it's a work of human beings? So we're saved by works, then?

Did not Jesus say one must be born again? Yes it could be considered a gift from God, but it requires free will to except it…
Remember that your works are a representation of your faith. No one can work their way into heaven, its all about grace…

 

[nephilimiyr]

Good Morning Borealis!

Just like many Catholic proponents have explained:

a) the veneration (not worship) of Mary
b) the title of 'Mother of God'
c) the Real Presence of the Eucharist
d) the validity of infant baptism
e) Peter's status as the first Bishop of Rome and head of the Church
f) the visible Church
g) salvation by grace alone, not faith + works
h) the Church's historical defense of the Bible and biblical truth
i) the meaning of praying to the saints
j) the existence of Purgatory

and lots of other Catholic doctrines. I don't see people passively accepting any of those, do you?

No I don't but so what? Do you think just because some people refuse to listen to your explanations about these doctrines of your church that you then have a licence to do the same? That is what I see you implying here.

Actually, I'm an ex-Roman Catholic and understand the Churches position on alot of those things and still don't agree with most of it.

By all means, disregard it. Go ahead and ignore the serious contradictions in what you're saying. You claim to reject infant baptism because it's not explicitly described in the Bible. I merely pointed out nearly a dozen things that all Christians are expected to believe that are NOT explicitly described in the Bible; they all have to be inferred, or taken from Sacred Tradition.

Not exactly correct, you are now misrepresenting what FaithInTheWord, myself, and others have said is the main reason why we reject this doctrine.

We reject infant baptism mainly because we believe one has to make a conscious decision, by themselves, to be baptised.

Sola Scriptura may be a means of norming, but the historical results of it have proven it to be both weak and false.

I'll take sola Scriptura any day rather then to believe something is true just because I'm told to believe it.

 

[FaithInTheWord]

Good Morning Borealis!


No I don't but so what? Do you think just because some people refuse to listen to your explanations about these doctrines of your church that you then have a licence to do the same? That is what I see you implying here.

Actually, I'm an ex-Roman Catholic and understand the Churches position on alot of those things and still don't agree with most of it.


Not exactly correct, you are now misrepresenting what FaithInTheWord, myself, and others have said is the main reason why we reject this doctrine.

We reject infant baptism mainly because we believe one has to make a conscious decision, by themselves, to be baptised.


I'll take sola Scriptura any day rather then to believe something is true just because I'm told to believe it.

We reject infant baptism mainly because we believe one has to make a conscious decision, by themselves, to be baptised.

I agree with this statement, and I am an ex-Catholic myself… As to the rest of your comments, they only confuse me as to your point. If we disagree with each other on some point, let’s just agree to disagree.

 

[Borealis]

Good Morning Borealis!


No I don't but so what? Do you think just because some people refuse to listen to your explanations about these doctrines of your church that you then have a licence to do the same? That is what I see you implying here.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining that we're misrepresenting sola scriptura (which we're not, we're fully aware of what sola scriptura means in a practical sense, even if the theory intends something else), while simultaneously attacking dozens of Catholic teachings based on a wilful misunderstanding.

Actually, I'm an ex-Roman Catholic and understand the Churches position on alot of those things and still don't agree with most of it.

That's unfortunate. I'll pray that God will bring you back, as He did me ten years ago.

Not exactly correct, you are now misrepresenting what FaithInTheWord, myself, and others have said is the main reason why we reject this doctrine.

Excuse me, but I clearly saw people stating that it wasn't in the Bible, so it wasn't accepted. Go back and read it yourself.

We reject infant baptism mainly because we believe one has to make a conscious decision, by themselves, to be baptised.

Which is a belief that was rejected by the Church two thousand years ago. Of course we're going to preach against it. Infant baptism is historical, biblical, and existed long before the Bible was compiled.

I'll take sola Scriptura any day rather then to believe something is true just because I'm told to believe it.

I'll take the word of God's established Church over men's interpretations any day. I don't accept things are true just because 'the Church says so.' I look at the evidence, just like the Bereans did, and recognize that the Church was right.

 

[KEPLER]

We reject infant baptism mainly because we believe one has to make a conscious decision, by themselves, to be baptised.

This position has absolutely ZERO support from Scripture.

You CANNOT work from "the only example we have is..." and base a doctrine on that. Preposterous.

 

[KEPLER]

It helps to define the terms...

A. Is Baptism God's action, done by Him, through the Holy Spirit, to adopt us into His family?

or

B. Is Baptism our action, an act of obedience to publicly profess our belief?


A or B ???

(HINT: There is only ONE correct answer!)

 

[KEPLER]

Nephilimiyr, et alia,... I asked this of Jig and never got a reply...but I'll ask of you as well...

If I understand your reasoning here, you are suggesting that BECAUSE we have no explicit references in the New Testament to infant baptism, we therefore ought not practice it?

Or, to put it another way, we should practice Baptism (indeed, all of our beliefs) ONLY in the way that we see clearly and unambigously demonstrated in the New Testament...is that what you are saying?

 

[nephilimiyr]

We reject infant baptism mainly because we believe one has to make a conscious decision, by themselves, to be baptised.

I agree with this statement, and I am an ex-Catholic myself… As to the rest of your comments, they only confuse me as to your point. If we disagree with each other on some point, let’s just agree to disagree.

I believe Borealis, as well as most Catholics who would be considered regulars here in General Forums has had Sola Scriptura explained to them more than enough to not have to misrepresent it like he did. I called him on it and he came back with how others here misrepresent the RCC's doctrines.

My point to him is just because others here may knowingly misrepresent his Churches doctrines doesn't make it right if he is going to do the same with their's. In fact, all that accomplishes is keeping the merry-go-round turning.

I totally agree with agreeing to disagree. I often love to do so.

 

[Lynn73]

That's about all we can do on these issues: agree to disagree.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Nephilimiyr, et alia,... I asked this of Jig and never got a reply...but I'll ask of you as well...

If I understand your reasoning here, you are suggesting that BECAUSE we have no explicit references in the New Testament to infant baptism, we therefore ought not practice it?

Or, to put it another way, we should practice Baptism (indeed, all of our beliefs) ONLY in the way that we see clearly and unambigously demonstrated in the New Testament...is that what you are saying?

I did make reference to the fact that I see no evidence in scripture for the command that infants be baptised, this is true but it is not the main reason why I reject infant baptism. I reject it because all reference's to baptism shows one has to make a conscious choice to be baptised...no one in scripture is ever forced to be baptised or is unknowingly baptised. In fact, all the times when the Bible is talking about Baptisim, the belief in Jesus Christ is always present first in the people first before they are baptised. It's part of the definition, first you believe, then you are baptised.

Here's my post:
Why do I reject infant Baptism? For one, nowhere in the New Testament does it command us to do so. Secondly, infant baptism is favoritism at it's worst. If infant baptism was what Jesus wanted then what we have is Jesus wanting only infants who happen to be lucky enough to have believing parents enter salvation if they die as infants but for those infants who have non-believing parents, well they simply have no chance.

This is punishing children for something they have no control over as well as rewarding children for something they have no control over. Now, whether it's favoritism or not, it sure the heck isn't fair or just.

 

[Lynn73]

Acts 8 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 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? 37 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. 38 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.

If you believe with all your heart you may be baptized. Since babies can't do this, they are exempt from baptism. The Scriptural example is belief first, then baptism.

 

[nephilimiyr]

If I understand your reasoning here, you are suggesting that BECAUSE we have no explicit references in the New Testament to infant baptism, we therefore ought not practice it?

I have not said that people ought not practise it. That was not the question I was asked to answer, I was only asked why I reject it.

If people believe in infant baptism and believe it must be done then by all means go ahead and do so.
Just because I don't believe it's necessary doesn't in anyway shape or form mean that I then condemn those who do.

I believe the children are already protected.

LOL, now I've been accused of only believeing in something only if it is stated in the Bible but this is not exactly true.

 

[SumTinWong]

Why do some groups hold to the historical Christian teaching of infant Baptism while others do not?

This question is a bit more complicated than any answer I will give here, but for the most part Baptism to many protestants is looked at as a believers entrance into the church, and one cannot be a believer until one understands what they believe.

I personally am on the fence on the issue, as I do not see how it hurts and I can see the merit in wanting people to understand what it is they believe in before commiting to the church.

The Catholic Church has always held to this important teaching as have groups like Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists but for some reason other groups reject it.

Not all Calvinists believe this(in fact many do not), but as for the others I dunno, as I have never been one of them and cannot give an opinion on this.

 

[Iollain]

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

This is the one that convinces me, why would the writer leave out children if they were included?

 

[nephilimiyr]

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining that we're misrepresenting sola scriptura (which we're not, we're fully aware of what sola scriptura means in a practical sense, even if the theory intends something else), while simultaneously attacking dozens of Catholic teachings based on a wilful misunderstanding.

Pointing out hypocrisy by using hypocrisy? Don't you think that's rather arrogant? I guess that means that whenever you cause an offense you never have to say you're sorry? Just provide a logical excuse.

None of us here were engaging in such tactics. We were asked why we reject infant baptism in which we gave answer. I have not attacked catholic doctrine here, I'm only showing why I don't agree with it.

That's unfortunate. I'll pray that God will bring you back, as He did me ten years ago.

And what if I don't come back to your church? Go ahead and say it, I'll go to hell or my chances of going to hell have greatly improved, you won't be the first Catholic to have told me this and you won't be the last.

Excuse me, but I clearly saw people stating that it wasn't in the Bible, so it wasn't accepted. Go back and read it yourself.

And it isn't in the Bible, we are right about that. still, that isn't the main reason why we reject it. You were only talking to me and FaithInTheWord and both of us have said this isn't the main reason why we reject infant baptism. I'm sure you can find others here who have said differently.

Which is a belief that was rejected by the Church two thousand years ago. Of course we're going to preach against it. Infant baptism is historical, biblical, and existed long before the Bible was compiled.

You can believe whatever you want, I'm not saying you can't.

I'll take the word of God's established Church over men's interpretations any day. I don't accept things are true just because 'the Church says so.' I look at the evidence, just like the Bereans did, and recognize that the Church was right.

LOL, ok, I believe you.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Hi Iollain!

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

This is the one that convinces me, why would the writer leave out children if they were included?

The keys words for me have always been "But when they believed". This has to account for something.

 

[Iollain]

Hi Iollain!


The keys words for me have always been "But when they believed". This has to account for something.

Yes that is another truth.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

First, it should be noted that no where in the New Testament a new born baby Baptized at any time.

Great! Now let's see how consistent you are with this principle...

Second, Baptismal is a form of free will, where one comes to the Lord with understanding and acceptance. A new born baby can’t make a choice like that, and is presumed innocent in the eyes of God. Though we are all born into sin, a child has no knowledge of such things and is innocent until such time of awareness of sin.

Oops! Where do you find this in the Bible?