Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[Adonia]

Because that is the result after salvation. Works.

Ah, but if one claims salvation and then continues on in life as one's life was BEFORE claiming salvation, what happens then?

 

[Adonia]

I am not sure why they continue to add the word "alone" to the words of Scripture.

They do it to justify themselves in that one belief and then their rejection of much of what the scriptures actually say, command, and demand. That's why they ignore the Lenten season of fasting, repentance, alms giving, and reflection. "I believe in Jesus" they say and that's it, so nothing else is required by the believer. Who cares what other commands and direction is given in the Holy Scriptures - just believe and nothing else is needed.

Baptism? "Why do I need to get wet, it's not really needed".

Fasting? "Good grief, I'm not going hungry for anybody"!

Eating the Body and drinking the Blood? "That's crazy talk and does not exist!"

Doing Penance. "For what reason, I'm already saved!"

And on, and on, and on they go.

 

[Reformed1689]

Ah, but if one claims salvation and then continues on in life as one's life was BEFORE claiming salvation, what happens then?

Where does this idea of claiming salvation come from? Do we save ourselves? No. God chooses who to save.

 

[Adonia]

Where does this idea of claiming salvation come from? Do we save ourselves? No. God chooses who to save.

Oh I see, so the other thief next to Jesus wasn't chosen by the same God who made everyone? No, that makes no sense at all. My Bible tells me that God wants EVERYONE to come to Him - the offer is out there for all who would accept it, thus it is each of us with our own free will who makes the choice of salvation or perdition.

One thief chose salvation and the other thief rejected it, - that is the lesson the "thieves on the cross" seeks to impart. Once again we see that your interpretation of the scriptures is way off base.

 

[Reformed1689]

Oh I see, so the other thief next to Jesus wasn't chosen by the same God who made everyone?

That's what Scripture says, yes.

No, that makes no sense at all.

Take it up with God.

My Bible tells me that God wants EVERYONE to come to Him - the offer is out there for all who would accept it, thus it is each of us with our own free will who makes the choice of salvation or perdition.

That's actually not what it says technically, but that same Bible also says that nobody comes to Him unless it is granted by the Father. And all that the Father gives, comes to Him.

One thief chose salvation and the other thief rejected it, - that is the lesson the "thieves on the cross" seeks to impart. Once again we see that your interpretation of the scriptures is way off base.

No, I just actually don't take things out of context like you do all the time.

 

[RCommando]

from Catholicmemes on Facebook

 

[Yeshua1]

View attachment 3638
from Catholicmemes on Facebook

what is the truth is that at the Council of Trent, the RCC officially declared herself to be Apostate!

 

[Hobie]

View attachment 3638
from Catholicmemes on Facebook

Well, if they would follow what scripture says rather than 'tradition', there would be no issue.

 

[Revmitchell]

Acts 2:38-39 ---> Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

St. Peter references the Prophet Joel in this sermon, who said the coming of grace upon God's people includes "the little ones, and them that suck at the breasts." (cf Joel 2:16) Do you know any adults who are referred to as children or little ones and who still nurse, those who "suck at the breast"?

Children are baptized because the kingdom of God does not have an age requirement...

Matthew 19:14 ---> But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”


Do you force your children to live outside of your house until they are old enough to profess membership in your household? I would hope not. So too Christians do not keep their children from the household of God. Thus entire households were baptized in Apostolic times, which included children. (e.g. Acts 16:15, 1 Cor. 1:16) This is the regula fidei.

You are conflating the promise with the command. The two are not the same. The promise is the pouring out of the Holy Ghost. The command is the result of realizing the promise.

The promise is found in 2:33 "the promise of the Holy Spirit" in fact the entire context is what the people were seeing as Peter proclaimed "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:" 2:14-16. There was no baptism of infants going on here. Such is not the context. The promise is that everyone would receive the Holy Spirit. It does not extend beyond that.


The Command is a result of seeing the promise. In verse 38 we see the receiving of the Holy Ghost is conditional "“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." v.38. One must repent and be willing to publicly confess. These are the clear evidence of a true Christian. Romans 10:13 says "For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Now the Joel 2 passage you referenced. "Joel 2:28 “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions." So here there is a promise to Israel and what the result of that promise is. First, the promise is that the Spirit of God will be poured out. That is where the promise to Israel begins and ends. The result of this promise is also listed as "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions." Neither the promise nor the result of the promise includes infants being baptized.

So there are a few problems with your doctrine and interpretation of this passage. First, The context in both passages does not include baptistism of infants as I have established. Second, in response to the promise people are called to repent. Infants cannot repent, they cannot call upon the Lord, they cannot take part in any biblical public confession (i.e. call on the Lord, take part in the Lord's Supper, be baptized). Lastly, there is not a single example of infant baptism anywhere in scripture.

 

[Walpole]

You are conflating the promise with the command. The two are not the same. The promise is the pouring out of the Holy Ghost. The command is the result of realizing the promise.

The promise is found in 2:33 "the promise of the Holy Spirit" in fact the entire context is what the people were seeing as Peter proclaimed "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:" 2:14-16. There was no baptism of infants going on here. Such is not the context. The promise is that everyone would receive the Holy Spirit. It does not extend beyond that.


The Command is a result of seeing the promise. In verse 38 we see the receiving of the Holy Ghost is conditional "“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." v.38. One must repent and be willing to publicly confess. These are the clear evidence of a true Christian. Romans 10:13 says "For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Now the Joel 2 passage you referenced. "Joel 2:28 “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions." So here there is a promise to Israel and what the result of that promise is. First, the promise is that the Spirit of God will be poured out. That is where the promise to Israel begins and ends. The result of this promise is also listed as "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions." Neither the promise nor the result of the promise includes infants being baptized.

So there are a few problems with your doctrine and interpretation of this passage. First, The context in both passages does not include baptistism of infants as I have established. Second, in response to the promise people are called to repent. Infants cannot repent, they cannot call upon the Lord, they cannot take part in any biblical public confession (i.e. call on the Lord, take part in the Lord's Supper, be baptized). Lastly, there is not a single example of infant baptism anywhere in scripture.

You have it completely backwards. The Holy Spirit comes from being baptized. Here again is St. Peter...

Acts 2:38-39 ---> Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

---> Be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1. Be baptized
2. Your sins will be forgiven
3. You will receive the Holy Spirit

 

[Revmitchell]

You have it completely backwards. The Holy Spirit comes from being baptized. Here again is St. Peter...

Acts 2:38-39 ---> Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

---> Be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1. Be baptized
2. Your sins will be forgiven
3. You will receive the Holy Spirit

Well lets put a pin in that for just a moment and deal with the infant baptism which is the topic of this thread and which you have defended. I see you failed to include repent in this why is that?

 

[MarysSon]

How did you receive Jesus as Lord, by faith, or by water baptism as baby?

Good works are a result of salvation, but not the cause of salvation.

Good works are an essential component of faith - without which there is NO salvation (James 2:14-26, Gal. 5:6, Matt. 7:21).

Faith itself is totally worthless without LOVE (1 Cor. 1-13) - and Baptism is how a person of faith is regenerated (John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Col. 2:11-12, Tit. 3:4-8, 1 Pet. 3:21).

 

[Walpole]

Well lets put a pin in that for just a moment and deal with the infant baptism which is the topic of this thread and which you have defended. I see you failed to include repent in this why is that?

How did I fail to include repent? I included the full quotation of Peter's instruction in Acts 2:38. The very first word is "Repent." Here again is the full quotation:

Acts 2:38-39 ---> Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."


I presume you are attempting to argue that this precludes infants because they are incapable or repenting. Babies have no need to repent because they are incapable of committing sin, for they do not have full use of their facilities. Hence they have nothing to be repentant for. It is similar to those with a mental handicap. However, that in no way precludes them from receiving baptism. For the Apostle is explicit it is for "you and your children".

Furthermore, our Blessed Lord said the kingdom of God belongs to little children and we are not to hinder them.

Matthew 19:14 ---> But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[Reformed1689]

Babies have no need to repent because they are incapable of committing sin, for they do not have full use of their facilities.

And here is the lie. How do you figure babies are incapable of sinning? Where is that in Scripture? Do you have to have full use of facilities to sin? Can quadriplegics not sin?

 

[Walpole]

And here is the lie. How do you figure babies are incapable of sinning? Where is that in Scripture? Do you have to have full use of facilities to sin? Can quadriplegics not sin?

Because sin is a positive act contrary to the law of God. (1 John 3:4)

Infants do not have full use of their faculties and thus by definition are incapable of making a positive act contrary to the law of God.

Christianity 101 stuff here...

 

[Reformed1689]

Because sin is a positive act contrary to the law of God. (1 John 3:4)

Infants do not have full use of their faculties and thus by definition are incapable of making a positive act contrary to the law of God.

Christianity 101 stuff here...

Are babies capable of being selfish? Yes. Is that sin? Yes. Can babies be angry? Yes. Is it righteous anger or selfish? Most likely the latter. How do you square your view with Romans 3:23?

 

[Walpole]

Are babies capable of being selfish? Yes. Is that sin? Yes. Can babies be angry? Yes. Is it righteous anger or selfish? Most likely the latter.

I will presume this is not a joke and you genuinely do not know if babies are capable of committing actual sins. Here then is my answer...

Once again, sin is a positive act contrary to the law of God. In order for one to make a positive act, one must have:

a. knowledge (intellect)
b. the freedom (will) to choose based on the knowledge

Babies are incapable of making moral choices because they do not have use of their faculties (the intellect and the will).

How do you square your view with Romans 3:23?

Quite easily, as St. Paul is using inclusive language and hyperbole. For if "all" means without exception, then our Blessed Lord would be guilty of sin according to this definition because St. Paul does not list any exclusions in Romans 3:23.

 

[Reformed1689]

I will presume this is not a joke and you genuinely do not know if babies are capable of committing actual sins. Here then is my answer...

Once again, sin is a positive act contrary to the law of God. In order for one to make a positive act, one must have:

a. knowledge (intellect)
b. the freedom (will) to choose based on the knowledge

Babies are incapable of making moral choices because they do not have use of their faculties (the intellect and the will).




Quite easily, as St. Paul is using inclusive language and hyperbole. For if "all" means without exception, then our Blessed Lord would be guilty of sin according to this definition because St. Paul does not list any exclusions in Romans 3:23.

No it is not a joke. Babies are absolutely 100% capable of and in fact do sin from birth. There is NOTHING to suggest otherwise in Scripture.

 

[Hobie]

Because sin is a positive act contrary to the law of God. (1 John 3:4)

Infants do not have full use of their faculties and thus by definition are incapable of making a positive act contrary to the law of God.

Christianity 101 stuff here...

Exactly, at this point the mercy and justice of God comes into play, and scripture shows us how the faith of the believing parents covers the children, as when God sent His judgments upon the first born of the Egyptians.

 

[Reformed1689]

Exactly, at this point the mercy and justice of God comes into play, and scripture shows us how the faith of the believing parents covers the children, as when God sent His judgments upon the first born of the Egyptians.

To what age? No, the faith of the believing parent does NOT cover the child. That's ridiculous. Egypt is not salvation from sin.