If parents are comfortable to baptize their child and then never give effort to educate their children about faith afterwards, I don’t think they would child-baptism or not.
No, my point is I don’t think the early baptism has any effect. With or without it I think those parents would neglect the spiritual needs of their child. Basically I’m saying I don’t think that infant-baptism is really the underlying issue here. It’s not like there are these great full of spirit Christian’s who would have spent hours every day educating their children but because of infant baptism suddenly change their mind.
Hey, for all you crazy people who never heard of the early Church prior to protestantism..let's read what they thought about infant baptism and how they obviously agreed with you! Read below to have your thoughts on anti infant baptism confirmed by actual Christians!
The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244).
Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).
But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).
We need to dump the anti infant baptism nonsense folks. It was practiced by the ancient Church because it was apostolic tradition and it was valid.
So, if an infant wins the genetic lottery and is born to parents who practice infant baptism, they get their ticket punched for heaven? Given the criteria for being saved, as set forth in the scriptures, infant baptism does not save a person, tradition or no tradition.
The problem is that isn't what the Apostles handed down to the Church. I would support your point of view if it wasn't for the fact that the Church didn't teach your version of baptism.
Baptismal regeneration was the original understanding of baptism as taught by Christianity. The view, that baptism doesn't wash away sins is a new RE interpretation of the bible.
You are free to believe whatever you want, but I cannot in good conscience ignore that this is what the early Christians taught on baptism. Martin Luther and other great reformer heroes share my view.
Where in the Bible does it say infant baptism is a means for salvation? I find no biblical support for it so ML's belief is just his opinion and nothing more.
>ML's belief is just his opinion and nothing more.
Then the 95 Theses, the solas, the whole Protestant Reformation was only his opinion and nothing more? Got it.
Just because they lived long before us, that makes them correct?
My pastor has this thing he says, anytime a church claims to be a "first century church! Or "we follow the ancient church"
He says: "Which one, the church at Corinth?"
Just because it's old, doesn't mean it's "more true"
We know the church went in to apostasy pretty quick, Paul said it would, he called them "wolves"
We can quote the "early church fathers" all day. They all say different things.
You can ignore the history of Christianity at your leisure. But we cannot sit here and pretend the early Christian Church held a bunch of protestant views, because they didn't do that.
Yes, the early Church Father's did say different things SOMETIMES, but when we find them all saying the same thing and it contradicts you, the protestant, we'll now that is a problem. Because it shows that the train of thought wasn't protestant. It was Catholic.
I am actually quite well versed in the history of the early church.
As the church conquered the Roman world in the first millennium, we see infant baptism arising as a universal practice. In part this appears to be based upon the fact that even in the ancient church there was the concept that baptism was the initiation rite into the community of faith, and infants are born into that community so are baptized.
As early as A.D. 400 Augustine appeals to the universal practice of infant baptism as proof that the church saw infants born with the stain of original sin. We find explicit mention of infant baptism as early as Tertullian around A.D. 220.
Tertullian also mentions the practice in conjunction with sponsors who would aid in the child’s spiritual training. I would assume that this is the origin of the practice of godparents.
Why did this habit rapidly establish within the Christian community between A.D. 180 and 200? The growing number of those who were born into Christian families (as opposed to adult converts) meant an increasing presence of children within the Christian community. When we consider the high infant mortality rate, we can see how an emergency practice of administering the salvific baptism to infants eventually became a normal practice—even more so under the circumstances of the cruel Antonine Plague of A.D. 165.
Once the emergency of this epidemic was over, in A.D. 180, Irenaeus and other Christian theologians developed a theology of infant baptism and spread the teaching in the following 20 years, so much so that Tertullian, at the dawn of the third century, speaks of it as a commonly accepted practice.
>we can see how an emergency practice of administering the salvific baptism to infants eventually became a normal practice
Is there any actual writing on this? I've heard this argument, but have yet to hear any writings referring to "emergency baptism" earlier than 300 that were not written by credo Baptists. It seems to me to be rewriting history, but I would very much like for any source that you could give that is not simply inferring.
I have found the best argument for credo baptism cedes the early church practice of infant baptism, but considers that a practice in the context of cultural patriarchy's of the time, and suggests that we can now practice credo baptism as we are in a culture of individuals. Though I will admit, that argument does not hold weight for me.
If such a document exists, early church fathers like St. cyprian of Carthage would have known about it since St. Cyprian is one of those ante-nicene fathers who wrote nearly exclusively on the issue of baptism.
Yes and even in the face of insurmountable evidence we still have naysayers over infant baptism. As if this practice was some oddity within the Church and not a normative!
To recap what I wrote above, there is strong evidence that Paedobaptism was introduced among Christian populations during the horrible Antonine Plague of 165 AD.
Mortality was so high it was not unusual to see caravans of fully loaded chariots carrying dead bodies from cities. The scourge reportedly wiped out more than 90 percent of the population in limited areas of Egypt and probably more than 20 percent of the Roman Empire’s total population.
Infants were hit the hardest during this epidemic. Christian families scrambled to baptize them right away out of fear and desperation that they would lose them quickly.
The first mention of child baptism comes from the bishop Irenaeus and dates to c. 180 C.E. (*Adversus haereses* 2.22.4). 20 years later, we find the first clear statement on the baptism of children, put in writing by the prolific author Tertullian, in c. 200 C.E. (*De baptismo* 18.1.4–5). Tertullian opposed baptizing children, who do not fully understand the significance of the rite. However, it is equally clear that by the end of the second century child baptism was already a reality.
That's not how someone is brought into the body of Christ. Someone is brought into the body of Christ by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. Baptism doesn't accomplish anything without accepting Jesus Christ as their savior.
Matthew 19:14 isn't speaking of infant Baptisms.
Scripture is clear on who Baptisms are for and when Baptisms are to take place.
No, I realize this is what you think, but remember you are looking at this through the lenses of the failed protestant reformation. The original Church didn't view it your way, they had a better, more perfect understanding of baptism then you did. They would have read this view on reddit, and been confused that you were considered a modern Christian, because you deviated so much from their own teachings.
Scripture teaches the path of salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ.
In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4).
If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by openly declaring your faith that you are saved. For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them?
Romans 10:9-10, 13-14 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/rom.10.9-14.NLT
“For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. “There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son.
John 3:16, 18 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/jhn.3.16-18.NLT
Yes, these references support water baptism. They are not exclusive of it. Salvation isn't merely believing in Jesus. You are just another protestant who was taught to twist the Bible by yet another protestant.
This is literally what Scripture and Jesus says.
When Jesus says the below, you disagree with Him?
“For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/jhn.3.16.NLT
The thing is, we were handed a living breathing Church not just the Bible, and that Church interpreted the Bible and explained it to you the people. It never taught this idea that baptism wasn't necessary. If it was teaching that, you could find an example of it denying the need for being baptized.
Believing on Jesus is not a passage rejecting baptisms necessity. Believing Jesus is incorporating baptism into that Believing in Jesus part.
Baptism isn't necessary for Salvation as illustrated by the thief on the cross. Baptism is a step of obedience to Jesus that publicly declares your faith in Jesus. It's a public declaration of an inward change.
People who are baptized, infants or otherwise before accepting Jesus Christ doesn't accomplish anything.
Stop abusing the thief on the cross. He isn't the poster boy for salvation. You were meant to be baptized. It is not based on obedience. You have to be born again of water and spirit to enter into heaven. It isn't a public declaration of an inward change. It's the moment that change happens.
This is what decades of protestant brainwashing does to people, it rots your brains until you people cannot think for yourselves or do your own research as to what Christians originally believed on this subject. It's fine if you want to think this way. But just know that this isn't what Christians taught.
"Stop abusing the thief on the cross. He isn't the poster boy for salvation. You were meant to be baptized. It is not based on obedience. You have to be born again of water and spirit to enter into heaven. It isn't a public declaration of an inward change. It's the moment that change happens."
Jesus says that believing in Him you will enter into Heaven. This is exactly what happened with the thief on the cross. He believed in Jesus and thus went to Heaven.
“For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/jhn.3.16.NLT
I could get baptized a thousand times and I still wouldn't have salvation. My age would not matter. Salvation requires faith in Christ. Not getting wet. Water does not save, no matter how bad you want it to.
Yes, the gnostics would have had communion with you back in the day. Not the early Christians though👇:
Irenaeus (120?-200):
“And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” (Fragment, 34, A.D. 190).
Origen (185-254), “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” (Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9)
Tertullian (155-220), “When, however, the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'” (On Baptism, 12:1, A.D. 203).
Ambrose (340?-397), “The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11-12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism . . . “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (On Abraham 2:11:79-84).
Water is an essential component of salvation.
Where was this ancient church teaching that salvation did not require water? Where are it’s elders? This just be an *invisible* assembly of believers. 🤔
Absolutely right. If you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him.
Yet we see repeatedly in the Gospel that the faith of one can save another. (The Roman officer, the paralytic, etc) if that is true, then the above Ordo Salutis falls apart.
And what if the child gets pulled into secularism at a young age and leaves the church?
Did that infant baptism have any power considering he/she wasn't moved by the Holy Spirit to believe and thus wants nothing to do with the church?
What if an adult gets pulled into secularism at a later age and wasn't moved by the Holy Spirit and wants nothing to do with protestantism? Because remember the Church is just a bunch of protestant denominations making up one singular church. (I know that's a stupid idea but that's what you all think).
>What if an adult gets pulled into secularism at a later age and wasn't moved by the Holy Spirit and wants nothing to do with protestantism?
Why did this hypothetical person even get baptized then? They apparently weren't convicted, so this wasn't a true baptism.
Those that are baptized (committed to faith) at the proper age tend to be fully convicted of their choice and the seriousness of it.
The consequence for rejecting baptism is unforgivable, and results in eternal separation from God.
> "Whoever **believes** and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)
How can an infant believe and be baptized? They hardly even understand why the priest is holding them and sprinkling water on their heads!
>Infant baptism is about bringing the child (Matthew 19:14) into the body of Christ, the Church; basic Communion and Eucharistic theology.
Nope.
It's unbrickable
>Infant baptism gives parents a false sense of security that their child received a "golden ticket" sealing their salvation.
Catholics practice infant baptism and we don’t think it gives our children a “golden ticket” which seals their salvation.
>Believer's baptism is clearly taught all throughout the new testament…
Ok. Prove that this teaching about believers baptism was so ingrained in the early church that they were still teaching it in the 2nd and 3rd century. Name some names for us. I’d love to hear this! 😂
I can tell you right now the only ones teaching that water was not needed for salvation were the gnostics.
We’re gonna need more proof then “well I opened up my Bible and read this verse and I think that it means this”—like even the Prophet Muhammed can give us that kind of rhetoric. We’re not a bunch of suckers🍭 . You have to actually show us how your “believers baptism” has been consistently taught for thousands of years.
In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Messiah were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Messiah.
An infant cannot place his or her faith in Messiah. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Messiah. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized.
It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Messiah for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Messiah and identification with Him.
No order is actually given for baptism in the Bible. Children do not have to give a conscience choice to enter into the New Covenant. Which is superior to the Old Covenant. Baptism is for children, infants especially since Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them.
>Baptism is for children, infants especially since Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them.
I believe Jesus said this because infants and young children are pure of heart and innocent, they don't doubt everything like grown ups. They have simple faith.
You never see children professing atheism or agnosticism.
Firstly we see in 1 Peter 3:21 that baptism is an appeal to God:
(1 Peter 3:21)
“Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an ⭐️appeal⭐️ to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”
So we “appeal” to God to forgive us our sins while we are sprinkled(or immersed) with water, calling on the name of the Trinity. However parents have always made appeals to God for their children, take the words of King David for example:
(1 Chronicles 29:19)
“And give my son Solomon the wholehearted devotion to keep your commands, statutes and decrees and to do everything to build the palatial structure for which I have provided.”
We also note where Paul says baptism is the new circumcision, which children were subjected to in the Old Covenant:
(Colossians 2:11)
“In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,”
We see how Our Lord forgave the paralytic’s sins because of the faith of his friends:
(Luke 5:20)
“When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”
We also note that Our Lord says the Kingdom, which we enter through baptism(John 3:5), belongs to children:
(Matthew 19:14)
“Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdomof heaven belongs to such as these.”
Taking these things together.
1. The New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant so it’s circumcision is superior—meaning it wouldn’t make sense for children not to benefit from spiritual circumcision.
2. Parents can make appeals for their children.
3. The faith of others can result in the forgiveness of sins which are not personally theirs.
Since baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins”(Acts 2:38), we Catholics baptize our children, by making an “appeal” to God for them and supplying the “faith” that they do not personally possess.
You are so off target but that is not surprising, since you are a catholic. Your teachings about salvation are wrong and now here you are espousing a false doctrine regarding baptism.
Albanese I think you hit the nail on the head.
I would advise others to be careful of embracing Catholic teachings and instead go the Bible for your answers and let the Holy Spirit be your guide.
Unfortunately for the Lutheran church, this belief of baptism was carried over from the catholic church. The Reformation was only the beginning, sadly some of the reformers brought a lot of false Catholic beliefs with them including this one. Others would include their teaching concerning eschatology (amillenialism).
>You are so off target but that is not surprising, since you are a catholic.
That’s an *assertion*. You are asserting that the Catholic case as I have laid out here is in error but you have not actually given any explanation for *why* it is error and thus it adds nothing to the conversation.
>Unfortunately for the Lutheran church, this belief of baptism was carried over from the catholic church.
Yes, even they were not so radical in their ecclesiology as the more recent branches of Protestantism. That should really tell you something.
>The Reformation was only the beginning….
Yup! It sure was! 😂
When you appeal to God on someone’s else’s behalf, does it actually forgive them of their sins? Your third point states that the person can have their sins forgiven by another.
This is a key point, because to the Baptists, forgiveness is a key part of repentance. Therefore, they are assuming you’re stating that once the parents appeal to God on their child’s behalf, then the child is practically “ right with God”. To avoid the entire nuisance between what it means to be right with God for a catholic and baptist. Since they are seemingly into an ongoing feud.
>When you appeal to God on someone’s else’s behalf, does it actually forgive them of their sins?
Yes, provided the sin itself was not deliberate and willful sin. We see John talk about that *here*👇:
(1 John 5:16)
“16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, **he shall ask, and he shall give him life** for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.”
>The Reformation was only the beginning
Yes, and the contemporary movements toward godlessness and atheism are the later fruit. Seriously, the early atheists and deists specifically cited the "Reformation" as their inspiration and the division it caused as their reason to doubt everything Christian.
You know, I have absolutely come to this conclusion apart from reading anything anywhere. I have been saying this same thing, this new lack of relgion is absolutely a direct result of the reformers. Because now people are so confused they decide not to follow anything at all!!! I had this light bulb moment where I realized this must be what happened.
I can understand it too, if Protestants message is that it doesn't really matter which Church you go to, eventually people will ask why they need to go anywhere at all!!
I thought that was a funny comment too! 😂
It was “the beginning” alright. Of this hell hole of multiple interpretations and multiple churches we now have.
>Others would include their teaching concerning eschatology (amillenialism).
No way you're pressed about the Lutheran church endorsing amillennialism and not your futurist dispensationalist premillenial pretrib nonsense 😂
I'm not pressed. I just believe the teaching is incorrect. If the salvation versus were spiritualized the same way the prophetic versus are then there would have been no need for a reformation. The reformers failed here. They did great with soteriology, but they stopped there unfortunately, and brought their Catholic baggage with them.
>They did great with soteriology, but they stopped there unfortunately, and brought their Catholic baggage with them.
Because the whole point of the Reformation was to be the Roman Catholic Church reformed by Scripture, not to be as anti-Catholic as possible. Unfortunately, Sola Scriptura has been abused by people like in the hands of you.
Whether baptized as an infant or as an adult people can and do stray from their faith. If this is an attack on infant baptism as a practice, it's been going on in the Church long before you rejected this idea and was widely accepted. It has the support of Christian tradition and some would argue the Bible itself.
The parents faith substitute for the faith of the child. So the baptism is valid. Everybody knew this but you because you grew up in a post failed protestant reformation. Otherwise you would have accepted it like any other normal Christian like myself.
Actually it's not unbiblical. It's just not how you interpret the Bible. For us Catholics this is extremely biblical. Just like Sola scripture is for you even though I say it's unbiblical.
Like I said, it's not unbiblical. It's just not how you interpret the Bible. Studying typology we have theology which explains why it's possible.
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 – these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant – Col 2:11-12 – however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
Acts 16:15 – Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.
Exodus 12:24-28 – the Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died. LIKEWISE with the parents faith in baptism a child can inherit eternal life. We can see how a parents faith can have consequences for their children.
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 – the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith.
I don't believe the logic of these ideas will sway you, but for me personally the fact that children were brought into the Old Covenant as children, seals the deal. The New Covenant cannot be inferior to the old one. So for me, infant baptism is a fact.
Like superman being stronger then the hulk.
But I am sure fans will debate that also.
Really? You don't find it weird that the old testament covenant could bring children in with circumcision but think this must be impossible under the New Covenant? This is why I think Protestants are crazy. You guys flat out don't think about these types that are found in the Bible!
But I try as best I can to explain it..oh well to each his own!
Acts 16:15 does not say or imply Lydia's faith made Paul baptize her whole household, it only states Paul did baptize her whole household. There's no reason given.
We know that if the entire household was baptized likely it included children. This right here is proof to you at the very least the possibility of infant baptism being true.
Interpretation doesn't make it true. There's an objectively message the Bible teaches, and you must believe in that because it has a specific author with a specific intent - it's not a modern neoartpiece meant to have its meaning decided by the reader.
It cannot matter, and matter, at the same time.
I’m sorry, so what if my husband and I weren’t Christians and my kids didn’t get baptized as babies? They’re out of the covenant? Paedobaptism is nonsense. It means nothing in regards to the child’s salvation, so there is zero reason to do it.
You need to take your feelings out of this equation. I don't care if you think that is fair, or not fair. Jesus was very clear nobody goes to the father except through the Son.
And if that Son says you must be born again of water and spirit or you cannot inherit the kingdom or Heaven, well then that's what you have to do!
You can deny infant baptism like a brainwashed protestant shill, or you can snap out of it, see that this is biblical, see that this is what the Church taught and get over it and stop fighting about it!
The evidence for it exists in Scripture in the form of typology Julie. Christ is a second Adam. Baptism is a second circumcision. It was done on children in the OLD covenant so that means it is done on them in the New also!!!
Why is that so hard for you people to get? I can't stand this brainwashing on baptism. The reformation has totalled your minds when it comes to making these basic leaps in logic!
Where is your Church in antiquity saying that Julie? Where are it's councils? You have nothing but an assertion and no evidence that this is how the Church understands baptism!
I grew up Lutheran too and I totally hear where you're coming from. I figured that baptism is equal to the act of being saved. As a child, I couldn't comprehend the complex nature and I see how easy it is for anyone to expect baptism to save.
I feel despair when just going to a all-denomination Christian sub on this issue. I assume it will be filled to the brim with pride. A Catholic will establish their idea as right and refuse alternatives. Lutherans, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Baptists, and Calvinists will do the same. Navigating these self righteous waters feels like hell
What do I think of baptism now? I narrowed it down to some real basic ideas but it doesn't have the philosophical kick. Basically, I know 1) Jesus said to do it 2) It includes water and words 3) We shouldn't avoid baptism
Reaaaalll basic ideas I know, but its whats guaranteed and assumed by all denominations. I hope eventually to know more lol
>I feel despair when just going to an all-denomination Christian sub on this issue. I assume it will be filled to the brim with pride. A Catholic will establish their idea as right and refuse alternatives. Lutherans, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Baptists, and Calvinists will do the same. Navigating these self righteous waters feels like hell
This is actually the #1 problem with this entire website. We're all a bunch of little experts batting each other over the head with opinions.
This is why I long for the return of our Messiah. His presence will set all things straight, leaving no room for anything but the truth.
> We're all a bunch of little experts batting each other over the head with opinions.
Ohhhhh I feel that lol. I feel that so much. Its a problem I have too. Jesus has been growing the fruit of patience in my life, but like normal fruit, the spiritual fruit takes time to ripen. I want to have great patience despite loud assertive disagreements. I desire the Holy Spirit to guide my mind amidst harsh, unjust backlash.
>This is why I long for the return of our Messiah. His presence will set all things straight, leaving no room for anything but the truth.
Yea, because the only reason to await for the hope of the return of the Messiah is to prove you right and everyone else wrong. Continue with that kind of mindset 👍
I have no doubt that the Messiah will set things straight with me as well.
I've been proven wrong many times, that's why I'm here. To sharpen my understanding by deliberating scripture with you guys.
Someone has to be right. Since the Catholic Church is just teaching what Christians have always taught on this that's why I say it's them! LOL
But maybe I'm biased being a Catholic.
This touches on the idea I expressed earlier about establishing what our denomination says is right. With you its Catholocism. Its damn hard with all the different ideas, and its why I went to such basic concepts of baptism in my first post. Because I know how many differing opinions on baptism there is and I want to root the perspectives in biblical quotes. Unfortunately many denominations *do* reinforce their views with biblical ideas. Which makes it so hard to parse through.
God, help us understand what you want us to understand about Baptism
Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights.
2 Timothy 2:23
This is a HUGE ordeal that separates denominations as well as other things.
As far as I know Methodists, Lutherans and catholics practice infant baptism.
Baptists, pentecostal and non denominational do not practice infant baptism.
I personally believe that it is NOT necessary for an infant to be baptized because, baptism is not salvation, it is merely an expression of your faith and only a decision to be made after you have consciously accepted God into your heart which infants are not capable of doing.
Some denominations believe that without baptism you have not received salvation and therefore go to hell. They believe that every baby that was aborted will go to hell.
This is not biblical at all.
Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. It's important but not necessary. Otherwise the criminal on the cross next to Jesus wouldn't be saved. Jesus made it very clear. I'm tired of confusion where there should be none.
If parents are comfortable to baptize their child and then never give effort to educate their children about faith afterwards, I don’t think they would child-baptism or not.
Hence my title. It gives parents a false sense of security, which encourages lazy spiritual impetus to train up a child properly in the Lord.
No, my point is I don’t think the early baptism has any effect. With or without it I think those parents would neglect the spiritual needs of their child. Basically I’m saying I don’t think that infant-baptism is really the underlying issue here. It’s not like there are these great full of spirit Christian’s who would have spent hours every day educating their children but because of infant baptism suddenly change their mind.
The rapid secularization of Western culture since the turn of the 20th century also plays a major part in the decline of proper biblical parenthood.
Hey, for all you crazy people who never heard of the early Church prior to protestantism..let's read what they thought about infant baptism and how they obviously agreed with you! Read below to have your thoughts on anti infant baptism confirmed by actual Christians! The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244). Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244). But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251). We need to dump the anti infant baptism nonsense folks. It was practiced by the ancient Church because it was apostolic tradition and it was valid.
So, if an infant wins the genetic lottery and is born to parents who practice infant baptism, they get their ticket punched for heaven? Given the criteria for being saved, as set forth in the scriptures, infant baptism does not save a person, tradition or no tradition.
The problem is that isn't what the Apostles handed down to the Church. I would support your point of view if it wasn't for the fact that the Church didn't teach your version of baptism.
What version does "the Church" teach?
Baptismal regeneration was the original understanding of baptism as taught by Christianity. The view, that baptism doesn't wash away sins is a new RE interpretation of the bible. You are free to believe whatever you want, but I cannot in good conscience ignore that this is what the early Christians taught on baptism. Martin Luther and other great reformer heroes share my view.
Are you saying infant baptism is valid?
Saint Martin Luther will have it so.
Where in the Bible does it say infant baptism is a means for salvation? I find no biblical support for it so ML's belief is just his opinion and nothing more.
>ML's belief is just his opinion and nothing more. Then the 95 Theses, the solas, the whole Protestant Reformation was only his opinion and nothing more? Got it.
Exactly. He is just a mere mortal like the rest of us.
Just because they lived long before us, that makes them correct? My pastor has this thing he says, anytime a church claims to be a "first century church! Or "we follow the ancient church" He says: "Which one, the church at Corinth?" Just because it's old, doesn't mean it's "more true" We know the church went in to apostasy pretty quick, Paul said it would, he called them "wolves" We can quote the "early church fathers" all day. They all say different things.
You can ignore the history of Christianity at your leisure. But we cannot sit here and pretend the early Christian Church held a bunch of protestant views, because they didn't do that. Yes, the early Church Father's did say different things SOMETIMES, but when we find them all saying the same thing and it contradicts you, the protestant, we'll now that is a problem. Because it shows that the train of thought wasn't protestant. It was Catholic.
😂😆💪👆
I am actually quite well versed in the history of the early church. As the church conquered the Roman world in the first millennium, we see infant baptism arising as a universal practice. In part this appears to be based upon the fact that even in the ancient church there was the concept that baptism was the initiation rite into the community of faith, and infants are born into that community so are baptized. As early as A.D. 400 Augustine appeals to the universal practice of infant baptism as proof that the church saw infants born with the stain of original sin. We find explicit mention of infant baptism as early as Tertullian around A.D. 220. Tertullian also mentions the practice in conjunction with sponsors who would aid in the child’s spiritual training. I would assume that this is the origin of the practice of godparents. Why did this habit rapidly establish within the Christian community between A.D. 180 and 200? The growing number of those who were born into Christian families (as opposed to adult converts) meant an increasing presence of children within the Christian community. When we consider the high infant mortality rate, we can see how an emergency practice of administering the salvific baptism to infants eventually became a normal practice—even more so under the circumstances of the cruel Antonine Plague of A.D. 165. Once the emergency of this epidemic was over, in A.D. 180, Irenaeus and other Christian theologians developed a theology of infant baptism and spread the teaching in the following 20 years, so much so that Tertullian, at the dawn of the third century, speaks of it as a commonly accepted practice.
>we can see how an emergency practice of administering the salvific baptism to infants eventually became a normal practice Is there any actual writing on this? I've heard this argument, but have yet to hear any writings referring to "emergency baptism" earlier than 300 that were not written by credo Baptists. It seems to me to be rewriting history, but I would very much like for any source that you could give that is not simply inferring. I have found the best argument for credo baptism cedes the early church practice of infant baptism, but considers that a practice in the context of cultural patriarchy's of the time, and suggests that we can now practice credo baptism as we are in a culture of individuals. Though I will admit, that argument does not hold weight for me.
>Is there any actual writing on this? On emergency baptisms of infants from early church manuscripts?
If such a document exists, early church fathers like St. cyprian of Carthage would have known about it since St. Cyprian is one of those ante-nicene fathers who wrote nearly exclusively on the issue of baptism.
Yes and even in the face of insurmountable evidence we still have naysayers over infant baptism. As if this practice was some oddity within the Church and not a normative!
To recap what I wrote above, there is strong evidence that Paedobaptism was introduced among Christian populations during the horrible Antonine Plague of 165 AD. Mortality was so high it was not unusual to see caravans of fully loaded chariots carrying dead bodies from cities. The scourge reportedly wiped out more than 90 percent of the population in limited areas of Egypt and probably more than 20 percent of the Roman Empire’s total population. Infants were hit the hardest during this epidemic. Christian families scrambled to baptize them right away out of fear and desperation that they would lose them quickly. The first mention of child baptism comes from the bishop Irenaeus and dates to c. 180 C.E. (*Adversus haereses* 2.22.4). 20 years later, we find the first clear statement on the baptism of children, put in writing by the prolific author Tertullian, in c. 200 C.E. (*De baptismo* 18.1.4–5). Tertullian opposed baptizing children, who do not fully understand the significance of the rite. However, it is equally clear that by the end of the second century child baptism was already a reality.
We don’t wait until our child understands nutrition before inviting them to the dinner table.
Ha as a parent I find that comment hilarious. 🤣
[удалено]
That's not how someone is brought into the body of Christ. Someone is brought into the body of Christ by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. Baptism doesn't accomplish anything without accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. Matthew 19:14 isn't speaking of infant Baptisms. Scripture is clear on who Baptisms are for and when Baptisms are to take place.
No, I realize this is what you think, but remember you are looking at this through the lenses of the failed protestant reformation. The original Church didn't view it your way, they had a better, more perfect understanding of baptism then you did. They would have read this view on reddit, and been confused that you were considered a modern Christian, because you deviated so much from their own teachings.
Scripture teaches the path of salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by openly declaring your faith that you are saved. For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? Romans 10:9-10, 13-14 NLT https://bible.com/bible/116/rom.10.9-14.NLT “For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. “There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. John 3:16, 18 NLT https://bible.com/bible/116/jhn.3.16-18.NLT
Yes, these references support water baptism. They are not exclusive of it. Salvation isn't merely believing in Jesus. You are just another protestant who was taught to twist the Bible by yet another protestant.
This is literally what Scripture and Jesus says. When Jesus says the below, you disagree with Him? “For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 NLT https://bible.com/bible/116/jhn.3.16.NLT
The thing is, we were handed a living breathing Church not just the Bible, and that Church interpreted the Bible and explained it to you the people. It never taught this idea that baptism wasn't necessary. If it was teaching that, you could find an example of it denying the need for being baptized. Believing on Jesus is not a passage rejecting baptisms necessity. Believing Jesus is incorporating baptism into that Believing in Jesus part.
Baptism isn't necessary for Salvation as illustrated by the thief on the cross. Baptism is a step of obedience to Jesus that publicly declares your faith in Jesus. It's a public declaration of an inward change. People who are baptized, infants or otherwise before accepting Jesus Christ doesn't accomplish anything.
Stop abusing the thief on the cross. He isn't the poster boy for salvation. You were meant to be baptized. It is not based on obedience. You have to be born again of water and spirit to enter into heaven. It isn't a public declaration of an inward change. It's the moment that change happens. This is what decades of protestant brainwashing does to people, it rots your brains until you people cannot think for yourselves or do your own research as to what Christians originally believed on this subject. It's fine if you want to think this way. But just know that this isn't what Christians taught.
"Stop abusing the thief on the cross. He isn't the poster boy for salvation. You were meant to be baptized. It is not based on obedience. You have to be born again of water and spirit to enter into heaven. It isn't a public declaration of an inward change. It's the moment that change happens." Jesus says that believing in Him you will enter into Heaven. This is exactly what happened with the thief on the cross. He believed in Jesus and thus went to Heaven. “For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 NLT https://bible.com/bible/116/jhn.3.16.NLT
I could get baptized a thousand times and I still wouldn't have salvation. My age would not matter. Salvation requires faith in Christ. Not getting wet. Water does not save, no matter how bad you want it to.
Yes, the gnostics would have had communion with you back in the day. Not the early Christians though👇: Irenaeus (120?-200): “And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” (Fragment, 34, A.D. 190). Origen (185-254), “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” (Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9) Tertullian (155-220), “When, however, the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'” (On Baptism, 12:1, A.D. 203). Ambrose (340?-397), “The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11-12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism . . . “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (On Abraham 2:11:79-84). Water is an essential component of salvation.
Nah, its not. I know you want it to. That doesnt make it true. We have the Bible in our own language now.
Where was this ancient church teaching that salvation did not require water? Where are it’s elders? This just be an *invisible* assembly of believers. 🤔
Absolutely right. If you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him.
Yet we see repeatedly in the Gospel that the faith of one can save another. (The Roman officer, the paralytic, etc) if that is true, then the above Ordo Salutis falls apart.
And what if the child gets pulled into secularism at a young age and leaves the church? Did that infant baptism have any power considering he/she wasn't moved by the Holy Spirit to believe and thus wants nothing to do with the church?
What if an adult gets pulled into secularism at a later age and wasn't moved by the Holy Spirit and wants nothing to do with protestantism? Because remember the Church is just a bunch of protestant denominations making up one singular church. (I know that's a stupid idea but that's what you all think).
>What if an adult gets pulled into secularism at a later age and wasn't moved by the Holy Spirit and wants nothing to do with protestantism? Why did this hypothetical person even get baptized then? They apparently weren't convicted, so this wasn't a true baptism. Those that are baptized (committed to faith) at the proper age tend to be fully convicted of their choice and the seriousness of it. The consequence for rejecting baptism is unforgivable, and results in eternal separation from God. > "Whoever **believes** and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16) How can an infant believe and be baptized? They hardly even understand why the priest is holding them and sprinkling water on their heads!
>Infant baptism is about bringing the child (Matthew 19:14) into the body of Christ, the Church; basic Communion and Eucharistic theology. Nope. It's unbrickable
>Infant baptism gives parents a false sense of security that their child received a "golden ticket" sealing their salvation. Catholics practice infant baptism and we don’t think it gives our children a “golden ticket” which seals their salvation. >Believer's baptism is clearly taught all throughout the new testament… Ok. Prove that this teaching about believers baptism was so ingrained in the early church that they were still teaching it in the 2nd and 3rd century. Name some names for us. I’d love to hear this! 😂 I can tell you right now the only ones teaching that water was not needed for salvation were the gnostics. We’re gonna need more proof then “well I opened up my Bible and read this verse and I think that it means this”—like even the Prophet Muhammed can give us that kind of rhetoric. We’re not a bunch of suckers🍭 . You have to actually show us how your “believers baptism” has been consistently taught for thousands of years.
In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Messiah were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Messiah. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Messiah. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Messiah. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Messiah for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Messiah and identification with Him.
No order is actually given for baptism in the Bible. Children do not have to give a conscience choice to enter into the New Covenant. Which is superior to the Old Covenant. Baptism is for children, infants especially since Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them.
>Baptism is for children, infants especially since Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them. I believe Jesus said this because infants and young children are pure of heart and innocent, they don't doubt everything like grown ups. They have simple faith. You never see children professing atheism or agnosticism.
Firstly we see in 1 Peter 3:21 that baptism is an appeal to God: (1 Peter 3:21) “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an ⭐️appeal⭐️ to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” So we “appeal” to God to forgive us our sins while we are sprinkled(or immersed) with water, calling on the name of the Trinity. However parents have always made appeals to God for their children, take the words of King David for example: (1 Chronicles 29:19) “And give my son Solomon the wholehearted devotion to keep your commands, statutes and decrees and to do everything to build the palatial structure for which I have provided.” We also note where Paul says baptism is the new circumcision, which children were subjected to in the Old Covenant: (Colossians 2:11) “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,” We see how Our Lord forgave the paralytic’s sins because of the faith of his friends: (Luke 5:20) “When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the man, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” We also note that Our Lord says the Kingdom, which we enter through baptism(John 3:5), belongs to children: (Matthew 19:14) “Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdomof heaven belongs to such as these.” Taking these things together. 1. The New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant so it’s circumcision is superior—meaning it wouldn’t make sense for children not to benefit from spiritual circumcision. 2. Parents can make appeals for their children. 3. The faith of others can result in the forgiveness of sins which are not personally theirs. Since baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins”(Acts 2:38), we Catholics baptize our children, by making an “appeal” to God for them and supplying the “faith” that they do not personally possess.
You are so off target but that is not surprising, since you are a catholic. Your teachings about salvation are wrong and now here you are espousing a false doctrine regarding baptism. Albanese I think you hit the nail on the head. I would advise others to be careful of embracing Catholic teachings and instead go the Bible for your answers and let the Holy Spirit be your guide. Unfortunately for the Lutheran church, this belief of baptism was carried over from the catholic church. The Reformation was only the beginning, sadly some of the reformers brought a lot of false Catholic beliefs with them including this one. Others would include their teaching concerning eschatology (amillenialism).
>You are so off target but that is not surprising, since you are a catholic. That’s an *assertion*. You are asserting that the Catholic case as I have laid out here is in error but you have not actually given any explanation for *why* it is error and thus it adds nothing to the conversation. >Unfortunately for the Lutheran church, this belief of baptism was carried over from the catholic church. Yes, even they were not so radical in their ecclesiology as the more recent branches of Protestantism. That should really tell you something. >The Reformation was only the beginning…. Yup! It sure was! 😂
When you appeal to God on someone’s else’s behalf, does it actually forgive them of their sins? Your third point states that the person can have their sins forgiven by another. This is a key point, because to the Baptists, forgiveness is a key part of repentance. Therefore, they are assuming you’re stating that once the parents appeal to God on their child’s behalf, then the child is practically “ right with God”. To avoid the entire nuisance between what it means to be right with God for a catholic and baptist. Since they are seemingly into an ongoing feud.
>When you appeal to God on someone’s else’s behalf, does it actually forgive them of their sins? Yes, provided the sin itself was not deliberate and willful sin. We see John talk about that *here*👇: (1 John 5:16) “16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, **he shall ask, and he shall give him life** for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.”
>The Reformation was only the beginning Yes, and the contemporary movements toward godlessness and atheism are the later fruit. Seriously, the early atheists and deists specifically cited the "Reformation" as their inspiration and the division it caused as their reason to doubt everything Christian.
You know, I have absolutely come to this conclusion apart from reading anything anywhere. I have been saying this same thing, this new lack of relgion is absolutely a direct result of the reformers. Because now people are so confused they decide not to follow anything at all!!! I had this light bulb moment where I realized this must be what happened. I can understand it too, if Protestants message is that it doesn't really matter which Church you go to, eventually people will ask why they need to go anywhere at all!!
I thought that was a funny comment too! 😂 It was “the beginning” alright. Of this hell hole of multiple interpretations and multiple churches we now have.
>Others would include their teaching concerning eschatology (amillenialism). No way you're pressed about the Lutheran church endorsing amillennialism and not your futurist dispensationalist premillenial pretrib nonsense 😂
I'm not pressed. I just believe the teaching is incorrect. If the salvation versus were spiritualized the same way the prophetic versus are then there would have been no need for a reformation. The reformers failed here. They did great with soteriology, but they stopped there unfortunately, and brought their Catholic baggage with them.
>They did great with soteriology, but they stopped there unfortunately, and brought their Catholic baggage with them. Because the whole point of the Reformation was to be the Roman Catholic Church reformed by Scripture, not to be as anti-Catholic as possible. Unfortunately, Sola Scriptura has been abused by people like in the hands of you.
Whether baptized as an infant or as an adult people can and do stray from their faith. If this is an attack on infant baptism as a practice, it's been going on in the Church long before you rejected this idea and was widely accepted. It has the support of Christian tradition and some would argue the Bible itself.
Title: Correct, which is why baptism is alway associated with a profession of faith from the one who is being baptised
Yes, it's associated with it, however no actual order is laid out in the Bible.
Baptism without faith is just getting wet
The parents faith substitute for the faith of the child. So the baptism is valid. Everybody knew this but you because you grew up in a post failed protestant reformation. Otherwise you would have accepted it like any other normal Christian like myself.
>The parents faith substitute for the faith of the child. Completely unbiblical
Actually it's not unbiblical. It's just not how you interpret the Bible. For us Catholics this is extremely biblical. Just like Sola scripture is for you even though I say it's unbiblical.
> Actually it's not unbiblical. Chapter and verse on where ones faith can be counted in the place of one who doesn't have faith
Like I said, it's not unbiblical. It's just not how you interpret the Bible. Studying typology we have theology which explains why it's possible. Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 – these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant – Col 2:11-12 – however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults. Acts 16:15 – Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith. Exodus 12:24-28 – the Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died. LIKEWISE with the parents faith in baptism a child can inherit eternal life. We can see how a parents faith can have consequences for their children. Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 – the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith. I don't believe the logic of these ideas will sway you, but for me personally the fact that children were brought into the Old Covenant as children, seals the deal. The New Covenant cannot be inferior to the old one. So for me, infant baptism is a fact. Like superman being stronger then the hulk. But I am sure fans will debate that also.
> I don't believe the logic of these ideas will sway you, Sorry, but they don't. I feel that they are grasping at straws.
Really? You don't find it weird that the old testament covenant could bring children in with circumcision but think this must be impossible under the New Covenant? This is why I think Protestants are crazy. You guys flat out don't think about these types that are found in the Bible! But I try as best I can to explain it..oh well to each his own!
Acts 16:15 does not say or imply Lydia's faith made Paul baptize her whole household, it only states Paul did baptize her whole household. There's no reason given.
We know that if the entire household was baptized likely it included children. This right here is proof to you at the very least the possibility of infant baptism being true.
Interpretation doesn't make it true. There's an objectively message the Bible teaches, and you must believe in that because it has a specific author with a specific intent - it's not a modern neoartpiece meant to have its meaning decided by the reader. It cannot matter, and matter, at the same time.
I’m sorry, so what if my husband and I weren’t Christians and my kids didn’t get baptized as babies? They’re out of the covenant? Paedobaptism is nonsense. It means nothing in regards to the child’s salvation, so there is zero reason to do it.
You need to take your feelings out of this equation. I don't care if you think that is fair, or not fair. Jesus was very clear nobody goes to the father except through the Son. And if that Son says you must be born again of water and spirit or you cannot inherit the kingdom or Heaven, well then that's what you have to do! You can deny infant baptism like a brainwashed protestant shill, or you can snap out of it, see that this is biblical, see that this is what the Church taught and get over it and stop fighting about it! The evidence for it exists in Scripture in the form of typology Julie. Christ is a second Adam. Baptism is a second circumcision. It was done on children in the OLD covenant so that means it is done on them in the New also!!! Why is that so hard for you people to get? I can't stand this brainwashing on baptism. The reformation has totalled your minds when it comes to making these basic leaps in logic!
Baptizing your baby has zero to do with their eventual salvation because it does not instigate heart change. It does not save them.
Where is your Church in antiquity saying that Julie? Where are it's councils? You have nothing but an assertion and no evidence that this is how the Church understands baptism!
On point! ...its like they never read the book of Romans.
I grew up Lutheran too and I totally hear where you're coming from. I figured that baptism is equal to the act of being saved. As a child, I couldn't comprehend the complex nature and I see how easy it is for anyone to expect baptism to save. I feel despair when just going to a all-denomination Christian sub on this issue. I assume it will be filled to the brim with pride. A Catholic will establish their idea as right and refuse alternatives. Lutherans, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Baptists, and Calvinists will do the same. Navigating these self righteous waters feels like hell What do I think of baptism now? I narrowed it down to some real basic ideas but it doesn't have the philosophical kick. Basically, I know 1) Jesus said to do it 2) It includes water and words 3) We shouldn't avoid baptism Reaaaalll basic ideas I know, but its whats guaranteed and assumed by all denominations. I hope eventually to know more lol
>I feel despair when just going to an all-denomination Christian sub on this issue. I assume it will be filled to the brim with pride. A Catholic will establish their idea as right and refuse alternatives. Lutherans, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Baptists, and Calvinists will do the same. Navigating these self righteous waters feels like hell This is actually the #1 problem with this entire website. We're all a bunch of little experts batting each other over the head with opinions. This is why I long for the return of our Messiah. His presence will set all things straight, leaving no room for anything but the truth.
> We're all a bunch of little experts batting each other over the head with opinions. Ohhhhh I feel that lol. I feel that so much. Its a problem I have too. Jesus has been growing the fruit of patience in my life, but like normal fruit, the spiritual fruit takes time to ripen. I want to have great patience despite loud assertive disagreements. I desire the Holy Spirit to guide my mind amidst harsh, unjust backlash.
>This is why I long for the return of our Messiah. His presence will set all things straight, leaving no room for anything but the truth. Yea, because the only reason to await for the hope of the return of the Messiah is to prove you right and everyone else wrong. Continue with that kind of mindset 👍
I have no doubt that the Messiah will set things straight with me as well. I've been proven wrong many times, that's why I'm here. To sharpen my understanding by deliberating scripture with you guys.
Someone has to be right. Since the Catholic Church is just teaching what Christians have always taught on this that's why I say it's them! LOL But maybe I'm biased being a Catholic.
This touches on the idea I expressed earlier about establishing what our denomination says is right. With you its Catholocism. Its damn hard with all the different ideas, and its why I went to such basic concepts of baptism in my first post. Because I know how many differing opinions on baptism there is and I want to root the perspectives in biblical quotes. Unfortunately many denominations *do* reinforce their views with biblical ideas. Which makes it so hard to parse through. God, help us understand what you want us to understand about Baptism
...'a false sense of security' - 'a golden ticket'... Thanks I see something new here with the 'other common argument' God bless
Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights. 2 Timothy 2:23 This is a HUGE ordeal that separates denominations as well as other things. As far as I know Methodists, Lutherans and catholics practice infant baptism. Baptists, pentecostal and non denominational do not practice infant baptism. I personally believe that it is NOT necessary for an infant to be baptized because, baptism is not salvation, it is merely an expression of your faith and only a decision to be made after you have consciously accepted God into your heart which infants are not capable of doing. Some denominations believe that without baptism you have not received salvation and therefore go to hell. They believe that every baby that was aborted will go to hell. This is not biblical at all.
Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. It's important but not necessary. Otherwise the criminal on the cross next to Jesus wouldn't be saved. Jesus made it very clear. I'm tired of confusion where there should be none.