Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, March 14, 2011

Why do Catholics baptize infants?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question:  Why do Catholics baptize infants?  Where is that in the Bible?
Firstly, when Catholics are asked to show where in the Bible a particular teaching is, the first thing a Catholic should ask is, "Could you please show me where in the Bible it says that all Christian beliefs must be found there?"  (The Scriptures, in fact, do not proclaim this at all.  Rather, the Bible states that there are many things that the Bible could not contain (John 16:12-13) and that one must not look to the Bible as the pillar and foundation of Truth, but to the Church (1 Tim 3:15).

This is not to denigrate or dismiss the Scriptures, which are the Divine Word of God, but to say that the Scriptures do NOT state that all theological truths are found in totality in the Bible.  Scripture is NOT sufficient--and nowhere in Scripture does it proclaim this.  (Note:  while Scripture is materially sufficient, it is not formally sufficient--but this is discussion for another day).  Yet it remains that the Bible is the glorious, magnificent, sacred and inspired Word of God and must be treasured.  "
For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body...In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, but as what it really is, the word of God." -- 103-104 Catechism of the Catholic Church

Secondly, we ought to ask the question to those who object to infant baptism, "Where does the Bible say that we can't baptize infants?"  (Answer:  nowhere! In fact, the Bible states that "entire households" (Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33) were baptized, and one could assume that in ancient Israel "households" included infants.)
While many Christians see baptism as an "ordinance", in which an adult must proclaim belief in Christ as his Lord and savior prior to receiving baptism (something NOT found in Scripture, interestingly), Catholics view baptism as a sacrament (an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace), confirmed by the faith of the parents.
From Catholic convert Steve Ray:  "Infant Baptism is discussed and argued about quite a bit in some circles. I, of course, was raised Baptist and taught that Infant Baptism was a man-made tradition invented by the heretical Catholics who abandoned the Word of God to follow ill-advised tradition."  

So why do Catholics baptize infants? 
"Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth." --1250 Catechism

Again from Steve Ray (ibid) "To grasp the background and origins of Infant Baptism we must understand the original recipients of the New Covenant. During the first years, the members of the Church were exclusively Jewish. The Jews practiced infant circumcision, as mandated to Abraham (Gn 17:12), reaffirmed in the Mosaic Law (Lv 12:3), and demonstrated by the circumcision of Jesus on his eighth day (Luke 2:21). Without circumcision no male was allowed to participate in the cultural and religious life of Israel.

The rite of circumcision as the doorway into the Old Covenant was replaced in the New Covenant with the rite of Baptism—both applied to infants. St. Paul makes this correlation: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism” (Col 2:11–12)."

In other words, the OT ritual of circumcision of infants prefigured the NT sacrament of infant baptism.  Infants were circumcized; infants ought to be baptized. 

When we are born, we are born "in the flesh", with a fallen human nature, separated from God.  After Christ "made it right" through his atoning death on the cross, we can be brought into right relationship with God. This is accomplished through baptism, in which we are "born again" in the Spirit.  We become united again, as was originally intended, with God.  We become children of God, members of His Body, the Church. We receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  We become born again into a state of grace.

Why would we want to exclude infants from this? 

As was stated in a previous discussion, paraphrasing Fr. Vincent Serpa of Catholic Answers
If we could see the change that occurs in the soul of the newly baptized, nuclear fission would appear as child's play!  A sublime, profound change occurs, at our very essence, at the very moment we are baptized.  An indelible (unchangeable, immortal) mark has been placed on our soul--more powerful than any mere nuclear fission!
The Catholic Church is nothing if not consistent:  all our sacraments provide indelible, ontological (at our very essence) change to the universe!  That is, what happens at a priestly ordination, wedding, baptism, etc is a change so profound, so sublime, so wondrous, that the explosive power of nuclear fission pales in comparison!  We simply cannot fathom what power is unleashed via the sacraments! Crash helmets ought to be mandatory! 

Finally, many non-Catholics often point out that the Catholics believe we can work our way into heaven.  Infant baptism is proof that we believe that God's salvation is entirely a free gift unto humanity--that we can do nothing to "earn" our salvation--for what "work" does an infant do in order to receive baptism?  Absolutely nothing!  Salvation is offered to the infant, freely and through no deed of his own.

Baptism saves you now, as our first pope said in his first "encyclical", 1 Peter 3:21.  Infants ought not be denied this salvific gift.
                                        
For more in-depth study visit these websites:




"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

61 comments:

  1. 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Catholics give a hearty amen! to the above verse from Revelation.

      The Catholic Church has never added to the book of Revelation.

      Incidentally, Anonymous, the ONLY way you know that the book of Revelation is the Word of God is because the Catholic Church discerned this for you.

      So each and every time you quote from that book you are giving tacit approval to the authority of the Catholic Church.

      Delete
  2. If an un-baptized baby dies and goes to heaven (we belive this true of our God because he is merciful), then why must a baby be baptized?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Firstly, we as Catholics believe that we can HOPE for the un-baptized baby to be in heaven. But we can't proclaim this to be a certainty.

      Secondly, we baptize babies so we can have the assurance of their salvation, until (if) they commit a mortal sin.

      Thus, why would we deny the gift of salvation to our little babies?

      Delete
    2. ok but the "baby" in question MUST make the choice for themselves and at that age they can not being baptized is a way of saying "I am choosing to follow Christ" while it is not ultimately required for entrance to Heaven it is highly "recommended" as it is a sign of a commitment. Because look at Calvary, the theif who REBUKED the theif that was on Jesus's left side was told by Jesus "Assuredly, I say to you today you will be with me in paradise." Jesus didn't yell out to have water sprinkled over him to baptize him at last minute. Also salvation would come from Faith in Jesus Christ and asking him into our hearts to be our Lord and Savior (as I said before baptism comes after that) seeing as Baptisim is an outward sign of an inward commitment even in the Bible were baptised following their belief in Jesus. as an infant the best parents can do is raise their child in accordance to God's law and in the end the child making the choice themselves. (sadly at times it's the choice to not believe it) this brings to the verse (not really related to baptisim at all) but Ephesians 2:8-9 states: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." regarding your comment below on this verse (that I noticed after writing it here) please elabortae...how is our faith in Jesus (along with our acceptance of him as our Lord and Savior) only a small part? "And as for there being nothing we can personally due to ensure our salvation, that is absolutely true. No one's salvation can ever be ensured. We know we are saved only when we die and are with Him eternally."


      well if you truly believed with your heart and meant it when you asked Christ to come into your heart and "live within you" as your Lord and Savior then you ARE saved.... there is no "Well Mary meant it whole heatedly to accept me as her savior...but I'll put her on the maybe list" forgive me if Im wrong but the way Im taking that section I quoted of yours Im taking it that you're kind of saying that there's a "list" (other then the book of life) and even if you lived your entire life for Christ and meant it when you gave your life to him that you still MIGHT not go to heaven....I mean there ARE verses that clearly state just the opposit of what you stated there are 96 VERSES ON THE ASSURANCE OF SALVATION...,..96 so if there is "No one's salvation can ever be ensured." the Bible clearly shows us 96 times of ways for assurance of our salvation if you wish I will be happy to provide them for you

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your comments, Cody.
      Several thoughts: The Catholic Church agrees with you in that the Christian must make a choice for or against God. However, just as babies under the Jewish law were circumcised based on their parents' wishes, so, too, is a Christian baby baptized based on his/her parents' wishes.

      Regarding the thief on the cross: how do you know he wasn't baptized? What verse in Scripture tells you this?

      Delete
    4. Also, I would like to address your comment about "How is faith in Jesus only a small part"?

      No one is positing that "faith in Jesus is only a small part". It is everything to us as Catholics.

      But just not the only thing.

      An analogy might be if someone heard you say that you don't believe that the writings of St. Paul alone are what we need to be saved...and he told you, "How are the writings of Paul only a small part?"

      You would respond, "I never said Paul's writings are only a small part. I just don't believe that they are the only thing that belongs in the Bible."

      Similarly, Catholics would never say that faith in Jesus is "only a small part". It's just that we don't believe in Faith Alone.

      Delete
    5. Regarding your comment about Mary--I am not certain what you are addressing here. I don't believe I mentioned her at all in the post. *confused*

      Delete
  3. Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.

    This passage very cleary says that you are saved through faith, and there is nothing we can personally do to ensure our salvation but just having faith.

    Also, what about the criminal who was saved on the cross with Jesus? In Luke 23:42-43 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingly power.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

    Jesus told him he was going with him today to "Paradise." There is nothing in scripture to report that the criminal was baptized, but all we have is that the criminal came to faith before his death. The criminal was the first person reported to be saved by faith in Jesus at death in scripture and joined Jesus after death. I would think that if a baptism was required, it would have clearly been mentioned or displayed in God's Word.

    Thank you and God Bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen! We are indeed saved by our faith!

      Just not by our faith ALONE. That is something that a man-made tradition has added to Scripture.

      And as for there being nothing we can personally due to ensure our salvation, that is absolutely true. No one's salvation can ever be ensured. We know we are saved only when we die and are with Him eternally.

      Incidentally, I do believe that infant baptism is a wonderful example that we don't earn our salvation. For what "work" has this little babe done to deserve salvation?

      We baptize even the very, very young who do nothing to earn this grace.

      Delete
    2. Regarding the Good Thief, (St. Dismas, according to Catholic tradition), what Bible verse says he was never baptized?

      Answer: none.

      We just don't know whether he was or not.

      And as for Jesus saying that the Good Thief would be with him "today" in paradise, we clearly know that Jesus did NOT go to paradise on that day, right? Jesus died on Friday, yes?

      Delete
  4. You are correct that Jesus died on Friday, but to say that Jesus did not go to paradise that day would mean that Jesus was not truthful to the criminal. He could have said you will soon join me in paradise, or words to that effect. However he told him clearly "today you will join me in Paradise." Obviously none of us accurately knows what happened to Jesus' spirit when he let in go at death, but as I mentioned earlier, you have to take what he said at face value because it was a very direct and clear statement.

    I can speculate what Paradise may have been i.e. "Abraham's Bosom," etc.. However, I am going to just take the scripture for what it said; and it said the criminal would join Jesus in Paradise that day. No sacraments were shown to be needed to do that, all that was shown was just that little bit of faith at the last hour of life.

    Thanks for the discussion and God Bless!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The text is not clear whether it says, I tell you today (as in, not tomorrow), you will be with me in paradise.

      Or

      I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.

      Ancient texts did not use commas, so it is your interjection that determines how you understand the text.

      At any rate, Jesus told us he would not ascend into heaven until after his 40 days on earth. That is why Mary Magdalene could not touch him. (John 20;17).

      So clearly Jesus could not have taken St. Dismas to heaven with him on Friday. He must have been talking about Purgatory.

      Delete
    2. Question on this. Is Christ not God and God not the holy spirit? Is God the father who is Christ not in Heaven? Thus the theif was with God who is Christ in heaven.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your comments, Anonymous.

      There is no argument from any Catholic that the thief is anywhere but in heaven. In fact, Catholic tradition has given this thief a name--he is known as St. Dismas.

      Not sure why you think it was important to point out that "thus the thief was with God who is Christ in heaven"??

      Delete
  5. if you baptise a baby does that not take away their freedom of choice?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Babies do not have freedom of choice in anything, Anonymous.

      It is the will of the parents that merits the salvific grace offered by Christ through the sacrament of Baptism.

      Delete
    2. In Exodus 2:9-10 we read that Moses was drawn from the water. In a sense one can say that Moses was saved by water. This can also be seen as the prefigurement of baptism. Moses had no choice as an infant. His parent had the choice of death or saved by water for baby Moses.

      Delete
  6. Dear Brothers ,

    Let me point this out from the above statements the mere argument is that bible is not complete so in bible it never says Jesus dint smoke ..so can we smoke ?it didn't say Jesus didn't drink alcohol ?so can we ? and many more which is not mentioned in the bible so according to "The Amateur Apologist"jesus said to obey your parents so as he dint say not to beat them up so can we ???? the defining tragedy is that even-though there are enough scriptures in bible that says about mature baptism [Immersing in water ] with out doing what is been said going behind which is not been said EG :As Student says i will not study the text book provided as there are lot more in other books ..teacher will reply first to obey what there is in the text and then go for the rest.
    Acts 2.38 And peter said unto them ,repent and be baptized every one of you [Please note need to repend yourself ,not with a proxy ]in the name of the jesus christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the holy ghost.

    Bible states that there are many things that the Bible could not contain (John 16:12-13) -Now this is because catholic think it is for them to deny the water baptism and to start water sprinkling on child this verse was given !!! dear brother when any book says more to be said it be something more to the details[With in the context-here please read the whole verse and you will understand ] which will not change from the basic concept.Bible is a combination of books and it dosent mean that it is incomplete rather it gives no authority to add anything to it .

    For the sake ,let me say that the catholic church added the missing link of child baptism ,then what about the adult baptism as Jesus, and the adult [NOT PROXY]who can understand the meaning of doing baptism as said in the Holy Bible ????????????

    Brother turn to jesus as is says "is is not who calls be jesus but who does the will of the father [not proxy ]..other wise you will hear jusus saying - I dont know who you are

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, thanks for your comments.

      Regarding this: "Let me point this out from the above statements the mere argument is that bible is not complete so in bible it never says Jesus dint smoke ..so can we smoke ?it didn't say Jesus didn't drink alcohol ?so can we ? and many more which is not mentioned in the bible so according to "The Amateur Apologist"jesus said to obey your parents so as he dint say not to beat them up so can we ???? ""

      My response:
      This is a good point. Since the Bible doesn't address all of those things, we need Sacred Tradition to direct the lens of God's Word to us, so we know what God desires of us.

      So you are exactly right in that since the Bible doesn't say these things, if we go by the Bible Alone, we'll never know what God wants.

      You also said, "the defining tragedy is that even-though there are enough scriptures in bible that says about mature baptism [Immersing in water ] with out doing what is been said going behind which is not been said/ "

      My response:
      Could you point out where the Bible says we must be immersed in water in order to be baptized?

      You said, ":As Student says i will not study the text book provided as there are lot more in other books ..teacher will reply first to obey what there is in the text and then go for the rest."

      My response:
      Amen! The Catholic Church, which gave you the Bible, has always commanded the faithful to "study the text book." We just don't study ONLY the text book, because the text book never, ever says to study ONLY the text book.

      You said, "Acts 2.38 And peter said unto them ,repent and be baptized every one of you [Please note need to repend yourself ,not with a proxy ]in the name of the jesus christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the holy ghost."

      My response:
      This, friend, is adding to Scripture. It does not say, "You may not use proxy".

      In fact, "entire households" were baptized. That surely represents "proxy" for the children in the households, no?

      Delete
    2. Regarding your comment: "Bible states that there are many things that the Bible could not contain (John 16:12-13) -Now this is because catholic think it is for them to deny the water baptism and to start water sprinkling on child this verse was given !!! dear brother when any book says more to be said it be something more to the details[With in the context-here please read the whole verse and you will understand ] which will not change from the basic concept"

      My response:
      Catholicism does not deny the water baptism. The normative way for Catholics to be baptized is to use water.

      You said: ."Bible is a combination of books and it dosent mean that it is incomplete rather it gives no authority to add anything to it ."

      My response:
      Where does it say that?

      You said: "For the sake ,let me say that the catholic church added the missing link of child baptism ,then what about the adult baptism as Jesus, and the adult [NOT PROXY]who can understand the meaning of doing baptism as said in the Holy Bible ????????????""

      My response:
      I'm not sure what you are saying here.

      Finally, you said, "Brother turn to jesus as is says "is is not who calls be jesus but who does the will of the father [not proxy ]..other wise you will hear jusus saying - I dont know who you are

      My response:
      On this we are agreed! Amen!

      Delete
  7. Dear Brother, I really appreciate your genuine mind shown to answer the questions.
    Regarding your response, if i say to my son/daughter not to go near the pool, will he get back to me and say i dint go near the pool as DAD said but was in the pool as you dint say that, No... Any child of common sense will not do so. So it is clear that that we have taken not to smoke ,no alcohol on the common sense what is been CLEAR from the bible .so my argument is that it never says bible in incomplete. There is no need to refer any other book to know what gods wants, it is crystal clear in the bible
    Point 2. Yes you said is true the sacred tradition is BIBLE which is in Hand and not a church ,The tradition what we follow is the tradition of bible and not church .Thz the reason it says in Revelation 22.19 –And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophey,god shall take away his part out of the book of life,and out of the holy city .
    Deuteronomy 4:2 -You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you [This means bible is incomplete and we can add to it ?????????? ]
    Proverbs 30:5-6 -Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
    Mat 24:24 -For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect [These is what happens when some one says bible is incomplete]
    And if we say tradition we need to go to Vedas .and Hindu culture in having a batter tradition ..Bible never needs a tradition but itself is a book of complete advice .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You said: "if i say to my son/daughter not to go near the pool, will he get back to me and say i dint go near the pool as DAD said but was in the pool as you dint say that, No... Any child of common sense will not do so. So it is clear that that we have taken not to smoke ,no alcohol on the common sense what is been CLEAR from the bible"

      My response:
      There seems to be a double standard here. Some times you claim, "If it's not in the Bible, it's forbidden." And other times you say, "If it's not in the Bible it's permitted."

      How do you decide which is the paradigm you follow? And what Bible verse tells you which one is the correct one?

      You said: " .so my argument is that it never says bible in incomplete. There is no need to refer any other book to know what gods wants, it is crystal clear in the bible "

      My response: The Bible actually says the OPPOSITE of what you claim. It actually says that there are many things that are difficult to understand in the Scriptures, that "the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction," -2 Peter 3:16.

      In fact, does not the Bible speak of another EUNUCH who tells us that he cannot understand the Scriptures unless someone shows him? (Acts 8:37)

      Delete
    2. Regarding your comment here: "Thz the reason it says in Revelation 22.19 –And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophey,god shall take away his part out of the book of life,and out of the holy city ."

      My response: "the book" that is referred to in Revelation is just that book. Not the Bible.

      You said: "Deuteronomy 4:2 -You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you [This means bible is incomplete and we can add to it ?????????? ]"

      My response:
      Deuteronomy is Old Testament. The New Testament was ADDED to the Word of God after Deuteronomy was written. So, if you are taking Deuteronomy literally, then it would appear that you, too, have violated the command in Deuteronomy to not add to the Old Testament.

      Delete
    3. You wrote: "Proverbs 30:5-6 -Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar."

      My response: Amen!

      You wrote: "Mat 24:24 -For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect [These is what happens when some one says bible is incomplete]"

      My response: You are adding to Scripture here!

      You wrote: "Bible never needs a tradition but itself is a book of complete advice ."

      My response: This is a man-made tradition. The Bible does not say that it is a book of complete advice.

      Delete
  8. Point 2 : The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott gives the primary meaning of the verb baptizein (1st Person βαπτίζω baptizô), from which the English verb "baptize" is derived, as "dip, plunge", and by giving examples of the use of βαπτίζω for plunging a sword into a throat or an embryo and for drawing wine by dipping a cup in the bowl indicates that the dipping or plunging need not be complete; for New Testament usage it gives two meanings: "baptize", with which it associates the Septuagint mention of Naaman dipping himself in the Jordan River, and "perform ablutions", as in Luke 11:38.[33]
    John Calvin stated: "The word baptize signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was practiced by the ancient church" - quoted by Brents, p. 230f. [Just to point out tradition ]
    No were this is having a meaning of sprinkling water and letz take the great example of jesus .
    John 3:23 - John baptized near Salim because there was much water there. John chose this particular location because baptism involves "much water."[If to sprinkle a little water is required ]
    Acts 8:36-39 - They came to some water (v36).
    Some folks think the eunuch pulled out a bottle of water and Philip used some of it to baptize him. Not so! The water used to baptize the eunuch was a body of water they came to as they traveled. Other Bible examples also confirm that people who were baptized went to the water. (See John 3:23; Mark 1:9; etc.)
    When people receive sprinkling or pouring, do they need to go to the water? No, the water can come to them, because not much is required.
    When people are immersed, do they need to go to the water? Yes.
    Again, immersion fits the Bible description of baptism. Sprinkling and pouring do not fit.
    Acts 8:38 - Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and he baptized him. This shows why baptism involves "much water" - it must be enough for the people to go down into!
    Do sprinkling or pouring require going down into the water? No. When denominations practice sprinkling or pouring, does the person go down into the water? No. But Bible baptism requires going down into the water.
    When a person is immersed, must the person go down into the water? Yes, so immersion fits the Bible description of baptism, but sprinkling and pouring do not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is true that the Greek word "baptizo" does mean to "immerse", but it also has other meanings. It can also mean a cleansing or a ritual washing. As in Luke 11:8 when Jesus eats at the Pharissee's home and the P is astonished that Jesus did not wash (baptizo) before eating. Jews did not immerse themselves prior to eating.

      Delete
  9. Acts 8:39 - After the eunuch had been baptized, he came up out of the water. In order to come up out of the water, he first had to be down in the water.
    Mark 1:9,10 - Jesus was baptized "in" the Jordan River, then came up from ("out of" - footnote) the wate
    When denominations sprinkle or pour, does the person then come up out of (or from) the water? No, because they never went down into it!
    When people are immersed, do they come up out of the water? Yes!
    Bible baptism requires coming to the water, going down into it, and coming up out of it. None of these are involved in sprinkling or pouring, but immersion requires all of them. Immersion fits the pattern of Bible baptism, but sprinkling and pouring do not.

    • "If she had not scrutinized carefully the writings of her children, rejecting some and approving others as worthy of inclusion in the canon of the New Testament, there would be no New Testament today.
    • "If she had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be inspired word of God, we would not know it.
    • "The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church." (The Faith of Millions, p. 145)
    • "It is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the scripture is the word of God, and what books certainly belong to the Bible." (The Question Box, p. 46)
    • "It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament...If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4).
    The Catholic writers quoted above state that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of the Catholic Church. In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever. "All scripture is inspired of God..." (2 Tim. 3:16). "...Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:21). "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matt. 24:35). "The grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures forever." (1 Pet. 1:24-25). The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.
    In addition to the above, Catholics often boast that the Bible was written by Catholics, e.g., "All the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 14). When we consider the word "catholic" as meaning "universal," we readily admit that the writers were "catholic" in that sense; they were members of the church universal--the church of Christ which is described in the New Testament Scriptures (Col. 1:18; Rom. 16:16). However, we firmly deny that the writers of the New Testament were members of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members of the Lord's church, but they are not its author. God Himself is the author of the New Testament.
    No last a simple point to be made –Acts 2.38 –Peter said unto them ,repent and baptized ...... Brother a child can repend him/herself ??????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments.

      Here's my response:

      You offered: "Acts 8:39 - After the eunuch had been baptized, he came up out of the water. In order to come up out of the water, he first had to be down in the water."

      So why doesn't your pastor believe that this means all EUNUCHS must be baptized by immersion? How does he know that it means that everyone else must be baptized like that?

      Regarding: Mark 1:9,10 - Jesus was baptized "in" the Jordan River, then came up from ("out of" - footnote)"

      My response: Does your pastor baptize all of his members in the Jordan River?

      If not (and I seriously doubt that he flies all of you to Israel), then why does he take parts of the verse and say, "This is what it means!" but ignores the other parts?

      Remember, your pastor is fallible, and as such, he is going to be in error at some point. Definitively. At some point he will preach something wrong. That's what fallible means.

      So perhaps your pastor's interpretation of Scripture is incorrect in this? For it does indeed say a "eunuch" was immersed. And it does indeed say that Jesus went to the River Jordan to be baptized!

      Delete
    2. You objected to this comment from another site: "It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament...If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4)."

      I state that the above is 100% true. The ONLY way that you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired is because the Catholic Church discerned this for you.

      You wrote: "The Catholic writers quoted above state that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of the Catholic Church. In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so."

      My response:
      Yes, God made it so. The Catholic Church teaches this.

      But God used the Catholic Church to discern for you which of the over 400 ancient Christan texts are the inspired Word of God, and which ones are not.

      You would not know that the Shepherd of Hermas is NOT God-breathed...

      except for the authority of the Catholic Church telling you that it was not inspired.

      Without the authority of the Catholic Church to tell you what books belong in the Bible, you would not know that, say, Hebrews is inspired and that the Acts of Barnabas are not inspired.

      There is no other way for you to know this.

      Delete
    3. You wrote: "In addition to the above, Catholics often boast that the Bible was written by Catholics, e.g., "All the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 14)."

      I respond: Yes, this is 100% true.

      You also wrote: "However, we firmly deny that the writers of the New Testament were members of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members of the Lord's church, but they are not its author. God Himself is the author of the New Testament."

      My response: This is an assertion you have not proven. The Catholic Church was in existence from the moment of the first Pentecost.

      Finally, you wrote: "No last a simple point to be made –Acts 2.38 –Peter said unto them ,repent and baptized ...... Brother a child can repend him/herself ??????

      My response: some children can. But for those that can't, their parents' repentance suffices for them.

      Delete
    4. Dear Brother, before pin pointing the major rebuts let me prove the real baptism from your own words which you couldn’t clarify? And more over seems funny !!!
      Your Comment to my previous topic –
      Finally, you wrote: "No last a simple point to be made –Acts 2.38 –Peter said unto them ,repent and baptized ...... Brother a child can repend him/herself ??????

      My response: some children can. But for those that can't, their parents' repentance suffices for them.
      You here proves that some children cannot and some can???Why such an answer when you stand by saying that parent’s repentance suffices for them?? First of all no child at the age of baptism cannot repent themselves as peter said and even more cannot understand the biblical principle of baptism ,if so the child should be extraordinary ,super human .To understand this what peter said we doesn’t require another book or explanation as the text is pretty clear
      It is a person [an individual ] who should accept Jesus Christ as saviour and the only one who can suffices for the sin is what Jesus Christ has done in the cross for us .Again so you are trying to say that a parent can be a proxy for the child ??? so who is repenting here child ? Parent? Or parent for child ?
      Mark 16:15 ,16 -And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
      Here again ,proclaim the gospel to the whole creation [this includes infant+ adult + gods creation other than human beings ] bot among the whole creation we are only preaching to the creation of god that is human being in the sense who can believe the proclaimed gospel and get baptized, an infant cannot understand the gospel and the other part of the verse says, does not believe will be condemned ,here note that it will not be applicable to an infant.coz a baby can neither believe the word of god nor reject it .Thank god for the reason in this bible verse it says all creation catholic will not go and baptize the animals and trees around !!!
      Brother if a non Christian baby dies it is applicable to them that they will reach heaven coz eventhough thay might have heard the voice of the gospel from a next door Christian priest but has not reached an age to accept or reject ,then it does not apply to them and they will be saved .
      Mark 1:4, 5 “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.”

      Here please note that all the land of Judaea,and they of Jerusalem and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan ,confessing their sins ????? Here any one can understand the English sentence “confessing their sins “means to confess one by one their own sin. Now you may point out here it is not said with a proxy baby’s whr not baptized ,then go back to the first statement “confessing their sins “and understand that a baby cannot.

      Delete
    5. Friend, in response to your comment here: " First of all no child at the age of baptism cannot repent themselves as peter said and even more cannot understand the biblical principle of baptism ,if so the child should be extraordinary ,super human"

      Of course children can repent. I have 4 children and all of them have repented of numerous sins.

      Usually by age 7 they are considered to be of the age of reason and capable of repenting.

      Thus, any child who is baptized over age 7 is quite capable of repenting without their parents' representation.

      Delete
    6. Amen ,Now you said it true and sounds reasonable , at-least they need to be 7 + and the the baptism in catholic church is given at that age ,in most cases it is before the age of 1 my sisters who are still in catholic church has given baptism at the age of 6 months and later when they converted adult baptism has been taken .If you say atleast 7 ,i will say Amen!!! That too a fully immersed water baptism ...may god the allmighty help you to open your mind as what god did to my family quite some years back ...

      Delete
    7. Yes, Catholics baptize people at age 7.

      But by your "Bible Alone" paradigm (which is never once mentioned in the Bible!), you need to offer a verse that says that 7 is the age of reason.

      Otherwise, you are using something OTHER than the Bible to decide such matters...

      Also, you'll have to show where the Bible forbids the baptizing of infants.

      Hint: you can search from Genesis to Revelation and you'll never find a single verse that forbids it.

      And if it's not forbidden, then I suppose your pastor says that it's ok? Is that right? Like birth control? Your pastor says it's ok because there's nothing in the Bible that says you can't use birth control?

      Delete
  10. Regarding: Mark 1:9,10 - Jesus was baptized "in" the Jordan River, then came up from ("out of" - footnote)"

    My response: Does your pastor baptize all of his members in the Jordan River?

    Dear Brother You didn’t answer to the question rather you pointed out another question .
    Here question you have to ask yourself is what is baptism ?,why jesus did baptism ?then the whole funny question of Jordan river is over when we learn . Mark 1:4, 5 “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.”
    Here baptism is for the repentance for the remission of sins and the river Jordan is not the key point ...if that is something which concerns you then i would have to ask it back why ?and it proved that you believe the other part of baptism which we do the only problem is the river Jordan ....
    Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." It never stated that to believe and baptized in Jordan .Thz the reason why we take what jesus did by setting an example [Best example that can be followed ]and not river Jordan and more over
    In John 3:23 we read, "Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there."
    Here also it was not a matter of Jordan ,But please not in all cased immersing in water was clear ,Here too note the statement “there was much water “to pour over there is no need of much water ....common sense need to be worked out here .
    Next we turn to Acts 8:36-39. – Please note here - And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him .to spinkle or pour no need to ...
    Romans 6:4 says, "Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death." Here we see that baptism is a burial, which is what is done when one is immersed. Sprinkling is not a burial; it is only sprinkling. Neither is pouring a burial. Both are unlawful substitutions made by man which will cause many people to be lost.
    Can somebody in the term buried [Put or hide under ground] by sprinking some dust to the dead body can we say he is buried . and this is the reason why we take exactly the meaning of the baptism to be immersed in water as said in the scriptures and not taking Jordan alone .Hope it is clear .Brother get you mind open to Christ and be saved

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Friend, you wrote: "Here baptism is for the repentance for the remission of sins and the river Jordan is not the key point."

      I agree 100%.

      The point is, how do you decide which is the "key point" of the verse. Your pastor seems to have emphasized that the "key point" is the being immersed in the water.

      How does he know that the "key point" is not that it was a eunuch, or in the River Jordan?

      It's simply something that he chose to focus on. But all 3 points are in the verse.

      So how do you know what's the important part: the fact that it was done by immersion? the fact that it was done to a eunuch? the fact that it was done in the River Jordan?

      It does appear that your pastor has arbitrarily taken one of those points and decided, without any Scriptural basis, to focus on that part.

      Delete
    2. Brother a clear answer to this has been given in the above statement .it is not a matter of a pastor ,from the scripture ...Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." It never stated that to believe and baptized in Jordan ...rather the key point was baptism and in all the examples including jesus christ as i mentioned earlier it was immersing [as the direct meaning implies ]

      Romans 6:4 says, "Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death." Here we see that baptism is a burial, which is what is done when one is immersed. Sprinkling is not a burial; it is only sprinkling. Neither is pouring a burial. Both are unlawful substitutions made by man which will cause many people to be lost.

      So how do you know what's the important part: the fact that it was done by immersion? the fact that it was done to a eunuch? the fact that it was done in the River Jordan?

      Even-though i have cleared it, to pin point and answer - you have accepted it is a fact that it was done by immersion ..now thank god that opened you mind ,you have to obey that first .now to the 2nd point.it was not only done to eunuch but as well to many including Jesus Christ and it was not only done in jordan but many other places as well .but in all cases the meaning of baptism ,way in which it was done and people seeking for more water[to ne immersed] and other examples remains the same ..

      I still wonder not even a single statement is been done correctly taken in an infant baptism and then why you point out on ennuch and jordan [ans:has been given above] .Brother i am here not to argue but pray and write to open your mind to find the truth.

      even i accept for the sake of an argument that the catholic chruch has given the bible ,wonder why it is not been accepted in the way it is been said .Let all the saved and find the truth .God is not coming to take the majority eventhough he wish so [that all should be saved rather to find the one who obeys]

      Think how many from the huge number entered the promise land .God never counts the majority [Whether catholic ,protestent,pentacost ect ]but the small group in the whole world who completely follows his way ...Let god the allmighty open the eyes .

      Delete
    3. If your point is that all examples of baptism are done by immersion, (and that is something you have ADDED to Scripture, because, of course, there is NOTHING that says this!), but I will accept that for the sake of this discussion....then you will have to agree that all of these baptisms done by immersion were done in Israel. In a river.

      So why does your pastor not say that you must go to Israel to be baptized? Or in a river.

      You see, friend, I simply don't understand why you submit to the authority of your fallible pastor's interpretation. He takes one point and emphasizes it, but how do you know that it's not the other things mentioned in that verse which are the ones that are the key points?

      You are simply following a fallible man's interpretation.

      And if he's fallible, that means he's going to be wrong at some point.

      Delete
  11. The above argument, i wonder whether you have gone through the previous comment carefully.In bible it says Independently about Baptism where we will understand the meaning of baptism especially as i rightly pointed out in the verse that compares it to a death

    [Romans 6:4 says, "Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death." Here we see that baptism is a burial, which is what is done when one is immersed. Sprinkling is not a burial; it is only sprinkling. Neither is pouring a burial. Both are unlawful substitutions made by man which will cause many people to be lost. ] this expression has to be done physically other wise god would have not said for such an act rather with mind we can ask for forgiveness and get saved .

    And now from the point of jordan you have moved to Israel which seems like just writing to defend yourself and further once i prove you will change to a continent and so on

    ...Matthew 28:19, 20 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

    In this it says teach all the nations [Not only in isreal or either jordan ,further explanations are given before ]But what i wonder is how come an infant baptism [You have accepted if at-least before age of 7 it is not good. thanks for that ,ref: previous dialog]be based out from bible and more over which will not make any sense to the near meaning of baptism .So first step is to go for an adult baptism and then go for the rest .Catholic church is not even interpreting rather following a pagan belief ,which in no sense is the baptism said in bible .An explanation which i got before was later we can explain to the infant when he is an adult to follow jesus christ ...i would then suggest to assign some proxy for every one in the world and pour some water over them later we can preach the word of god and let them may or may not accept the faith .Brother again it is a grown up adult who should repent himself who can understand the meaning and get baptized .

    True along with me many brothers and sisters unfortunately we followed the fallible man made concept for some years and later the holy spirit opened our eyes to see the truth and we all are now baptized [as said in the bible ]regardless of the fact that we have gone through the wrong infant baptism ..thank god as we know thy will forgive as it was done without we knowing what has been done [at the age below 1 year ]

    Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, Here in this Bible verse tis is what we do get buried [Immersed in water ] like christ raised [coming out of water ] so can we say christ was buried in jordan in any sense ???? No Can we say Christ raised from the death from Jordan ?? Brother i have given enough examples in many versed above ...having said all this in no ways infant baptism is justifiable .Let the Holy spirit open your mind to see the truth and get saved not too late ...
    When all the examples and verses satisfy the direct meaning of baptism to be immersed then still arguing that they do have other meaning...God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, friend.

      You are absolutely in agreement with the Catholic Church when you say this: "In bible it says Independently about Baptism where we will understand the meaning of baptism especially as i rightly pointed out in the verse that compares it to a death ."

      Amen!

      But as for burial being a parallel with immersion, that is something you have ADDED to Scripture.

      For is it not true that Jesus was buried but was NOT IMMERSED in the ground? Was he not laid to rest in a tomb? That is, ABOVE the ground?

      How is it, then that your pastor proclaims that a burial metaphor must mean immersion, when Jesus' own example of a burial excludes immersion into the ground?

      Delete
    2. Incidentally, did you know, friend that St. Paul was baptized in a house?

      So Ananias went and ENTERED THE HOUSE; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, --Acts 9

      So, unless this house was submerged in water, it's hard to imagine how he could have be baptized by immersion.

      Additionally, thousands of people in Jerusalem were baptized in one day after St. Peter preached (Acts 2:41) so logistically it would have been impossible to immerse all of these people. There simply wasn't enough water in the ancient near east. Not to mention, with water being such a limited commodity, no native of Jerusalem would have taken kindly to thousands of unwashed bodies polluting their precious water supply.

      Delete
  12. Acts 9 never says he was baptized by sprinkling but indisputably in the entire example versus you quote it is clear that a mature adult who in all means can understand the purpose of baptism was baptized unlike an infant being baptized in Catholic Church.
    Where does it say in this whole verse he was baptized by sprinkling water? When someone says he took bath and had food, does that mean he had food in the bathroom?? When someone says i took bath and went to school does this mean the guy has not dressed before going to school???when i say i wake up in the morning and took my bath does it mean i did in the bedroom or bed ??? Friend here it was mentioned in a nut shell and note the next versus says he had food after that and it is not mentioned he changed the clothes so can we conclude that no water was used as scarcity of water.
    As we are having enough versus explaining the immersion baptism i still wonder why you take versus in bible which no wr can be proved of sprinkling water...Here it is more logically proved that the proper way of baptism has been done .[When you get confusion compare other versus which i have mentioned before]
    Your next comment - “Additionally, thousands of people in Jerusalem were baptized in one day after St. Peter preached (Acts 2:41) so logistically it would have been impossible to immerse all of these people. There simply wasn't enough water in the ancient near east. Not to mention, with water being such a limited commodity, no native of Jerusalem would have taken kindly to thousands of unwashed bodies polluting their precious water supply.”
    Response – Logical impossibility is your logic .If i apply that logic even it is hard to understand how without any modern day equipment peter could preach to such a large crowd?? Rome would tolerate such a large partisan gathering. Would not Rome be threatened by such a gathering? First of all impossible is a possible when the Holy Spirit comes in and e if it is god who has commanded to do so no native of any place can object to it.
    And now Archaeological work on the south side of the temple mount has revealed numerous Jewish mikvahs - large baptistry-like facilities in which Jewish worshippers would purify themselves before entering the temple. These plentiful mikvahs would be perfect to facilitate a large number of baptisms and if no body disputed in the gathering and preaching of peter and huge conversion then as well cannot block them to be baptized .Praise god for his greatness that works beyond the logical limitation .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regarding your comment: "If i apply that logic even it is hard to understand how without any modern day equipment peter could preach to such a large crowd??"

      I respond: that's what the Bible says, friend. St. Peter preached to 3000 and they were baptized.

      To say that St. Peter could not have done this is to say that the Bible lies.

      I accept that St. Peter preached and converted 3000 and they were all baptized in a day, for that is what the Catholic Church tells us the Scriptures say.

      Now, as to how they were baptized, the Bible does NOT say, so we must apply simple logic: there was not enough water to immerse 3000 people.

      That's the logistics of it.

      To say that a miracle occurred and a stream of water appeared that was suddenly enough to immerse 3000 people is fine. God could do this, of course!

      But it would be adding to Scripture.

      It would be another man-made tradition you have proposed.

      It would be something that not a single page of the Bible states happened to those 3000 people.

      You can certainly believe that God made a river appear so they could be baptized.

      But then you would be guilty of the very thing you accuse Catholics of doing: believing something that's not found in the Bible!


      Delete
    2. Finally, regarding your comment, "And now Archaeological work on the south side of the temple mount has revealed numerous Jewish mikvahs - large baptistry-like facilities in which Jewish worshippers would purify themselves before entering the temple. These plentiful mikvahs would be perfect to facilitate a large number of baptisms and if no body disputed in the gathering and preaching of peter and huge conversion then as well cannot block them to be baptized .Praise god for his greatness that works beyond the logical limitation ."

      My response: can you provide Scriptural evidence that these Jewish mikvahs near the temple were used for baptizing the 3000?

      Delete
    3. can you provide Scriptural evidence that these Jewish mikvahs near the temple were used for baptizing the 3000? ???

      My Response - Can u provide any scriptural evidence it was not used ????...Either way it is not stated in the bible and it is not required as i explained before in the examples of baptism [Including jesus]it is pretty clear .

      Still again i wonder as both ways it is not mentioned in the bible in this particular case why dont you stick to enough and more baptism examples in the bible which explains of people baptized in the river.I have given real time examples above which you have not clarified rather beating about the bush ...

      Delete
    4. If it's not found in the Bible, then aren't you of the belief that it ought not be done?

      So to say that 3000 people were baptized in a day by immersion using the Jewish mikvahs--WITH NOTHING IN THE BIBLE TO STATE THAT THIS HAPPENED--is adding to Scripture.

      Of course, the Catholic position is that we know the Word of God comes to us through 2 channels: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, so we do not need all of our beliefs to be proof-texted from Scripture.

      Delete
    5. As far as examples of people being baptized by immersion in the Bible, I have given you an example of someone who was NOT baptized by immersion: St. Paul.

      What say you to that?

      And, again, if your example of baptism is of those done in a river, does your pastor take all of you down to a river to baptize you? And what does the Bible say about those who live in an area where there is absolutely NO RIVER to be found? What does your pastor state needs to be done?

      Delete
    6. Friend, I just read your most recent comment.

      Your tone is starting to get uncharitable, and I must respectfully ask that you re-formulate your thoughts to remove the sarcasm.

      Thank you.

      Delete
    7. Just a point of clarification: I will post anyone's comments here, provided it displays charity and a coherent thought.

      There is a commenter who is starting to get shrill and caustic, and as such I will not display his posts.

      But he is welcome to attempt to dialogue again, as long as he can do so with charity.

      Suffice it to say that if there is a verse in Scripture that proclaims baptism must be done by immersion, it has not been offered.

      There are examples of a multitude of folks getting baptized (including households with, presumably, infants) but not a single verse demanding immersion.

      And if we take the example of Jesus' baptism as the model, then we must say that to follow Jesus' model we need to be baptized in the river Jordan, by our cousin, when we are in our 30's.

      No pastor has ever declared that to be the model, as far as I know!

      So it seems strange that anyone would take the "immersion" part (which is not even clear that Jesus was fully immersed) and infer that this is what is required.

      A pastor could just as easily say, "Jesus was baptized by his cousin. Therefore we ALL must be baptized by our cousin!"

      Or "Jesus was baptized in Israel. We all must fly to Israel to be baptized!"

      Or "Jesus was baptized in a river. All baptisms must be done in a river!"

      Why the immersion part has become the important part? I have no idea!

      Delete
    8. Incidentally, just for clarification: Catholic baptisms may be done by immersion. It is indeed a fuller sign. 2 of my 4 babies were baptized by immersion.

      It's just not a requirement. Valid baptisms require: water, using the Trinitarian formula, and a repentant heart in either the recipient or his parents.

      Delete
  13. But as for burial being a parallel with immersion, that is something you have ADDED to Scripture.

    For is it not true that Jesus was buried but was NOT IMMERSED in the ground? Was he not laid to rest in a tomb? That is, ABOVE the ground?

    How is it, then that your pastor proclaims that a burial metaphor must mean immersion, when Jesus' own example of a burial excludes immersion into the ground?

    My Response -
    Hi Friend, You has not replied to many of the of the comments above rather has taken a small paragraph again to defend which is not a strong argument
    For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. [heart of the earth (grave) ](Matthew 12:40). Please note that in the above statement it is not a pstor who said so rather it is bible who compared it Jona was completely in the whaled belly and jesus was in the heart of the earth .Even if a tomb it is fully covered and he was in it and came out of it [Here in an out can only be compared to an immersion and not sprinkling [this is not a logical conclusion learn it with the examples of jesus getting baptized and others being baptized in rivers which is having more water ]
    Romans 6:4 says, "Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death." Buried meaning [• Put or hide under ground: "he buried the box in the back garden"; "buried treasure".
    Place (a dead body) in the earth, in a tomb, or in the sea, typically with funeral rites. Will it in any sense satisfy sprinkling of water ????? and when we take the literal meaning of baptism it satisfies the explanation and not even 1 % to sprinkling ......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments.

      Regarding the parallel with Jonah as being a parallel for Jesus' burial, which you state is a parallel for baptism by immersion...I find that parallel curious indeed!

      Why then does your pastor not preach that immersion must be done for 3 days, like Jonah? And like Jesus?

      Again, it does appear as if your fallible pastor is simply taking one arbitrary detail of the Scripture, but ignoring the other parts.

      Delete
  14. Hi, friend. I appreciate your comments.

    You wrote, "Acts 9 never says he was baptized by sprinkling but indisputably in the entire example versus you quote it is clear that a mature adult who in all means can understand the purpose of baptism was baptized unlike an infant being baptized in Catholic Church."

    My response: Acts 9 is not given as an example to show that St. Paul was baptized by sprinkling.

    It was given to show you and the readers that St. Paul was baptized in a HOUSE, and therefore could not have been baptized by IMMERSION (unless you want to claim that the house was submerged under water. ;-)

    As far as mature adults being baptized, like St. Paul was, no one disputes that. The Catholic Church does baptize adults, as well as infants.

    Salvific grace is offered to all of humanity, friend! Not just to adults!

    You wrote: "As we are having enough versus explaining the immersion baptism i still wonder why you take versus in bible which no wr can be proved of sprinkling water.."

    Actually, it's quite clear that St. Paul was NOT BAPTIZED by IMMERSION. But, rather, in a house.

    And as far as scriptural evidence for sprinkling, I like to cite this verse:

    I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.--Ez 36:25-27

    ReplyDelete
  15. "In other words, the OT ritual of circumcision of infants prefigured the NT sacrament of infant baptism. Infants were circumcized; infants ought to be baptized. "


    If God saw it necessary and good to include SPECIFIC orders to baptize infants, it would be in Scripture.

    This alone is enough for me to discredit any argument for infant baptism.

    Besides, what is the implication of infant baptism? Salvation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment, Christine.

      Your sentiment: "If God saw it necessary and good to include SPECIFIC orders to baptize, it would be in Scripture" is a man-made tradition.

      In other words, it is something never found in Scripture that everything we believe and do in our church needs to be found in Scripture.

      You simply believe it because you heard your pastor say this, who heard another man say this, who heard another man say this, but no one ever read, "If God saw it necessary and good to include" something "it would be in Scripture" in a single page of the Bible.

      Delete
    2. As far as the implication of baptism it is this: it makes us go from a creature of God to a child of God.

      And salvation is achieved only when we die, Christine. No one is saved until he dies.

      Delete
  16. 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17

    "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

    JOHN 17:3

    "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."

    ReplyDelete
  17. Baptists and evangelicals are absolutely correct...there is no SPECIFIC mention in the New Testament that the Apostles baptized infants. There are references to entire households being converted and baptized, but we orthodox cannot prove, just from Scripture, that these households had infants, and neither can Baptists and evangelicals prove, just from Scripture, that they did not.

    One interesting point that Baptists/evangelicals should note is that although there is no specific mention of infant baptism in the Bible...neither is there a prohibition of infant baptism in the Bible. Christians are commanded by Christ to go into all the world and preach the Gospel and to baptize all nations. No age restrictions are mentioned. If Christ had intended his followers to understand that infants could not be baptized in the New Covenant, in a household conversion process as was the practice of the Jews of Christ's day in converting Gentile households to the Covenant of Abraham, it is strange that no mention is made of this prohibition.

    So, the only real way to find out if Infant Baptism was practiced by the Apostles is to look at the writings of the early Christians, some of whom were disciples of the Apostles, such as Polycarp, and see what they said on this issue.

    And here is a key point: Infant Baptism makes absolutely no sense if you believe that sinners can and must make an informed, mature decision to believe in order to be saved. Infants cannot make informed, mature decisions, so if this is the correct Doctrine of Justification/Salvation, Infant Baptism is clearly false teaching. But the (arminian) Baptist/evangelical Doctrine of Justification/Salvation is unscriptural. Being forced to make a decision to obtain a gift, makes the gift no longer free. This is salvation by works.

    Baptism is a command of God. It is not a work of man. God says in plain, simple language, in multiple locations in the Bible, that he saves/forgives sins in Baptism. We orthodox Christians accept God's literal Word. We take our infants to be baptized because God says to do it. Our infants are not saved because we perform the act of bringing them to the baptismal font...they are saved by the power of God's Word pronounced at the time of the Baptism. Christians have believed this for 2,000 years!

    There is no evidence that any Christian in the early Church believed that sinners are saved by making a free will decision and then are baptized solely as a public profession of faith. None.

    Gary
    Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals

    ReplyDelete