Children and babies ought to be baptized. For if even babies received the holy spirit while still being in the womb, such as John the Baptist, why should the baptism of water be withheld from babies and children? And when the Red Sea was parted by Moses, which was a type of baptism, not only did adults cross through, but also the babies and children of the Israelites. I have a detailed study as to why here http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2017/03/08/baptism-of-water-for-babies-and-children/ .
Baptism of Water for Babies and Children
- Thread starter cgaviria
- Start date
dodge
New member
Scripture says repent and be baptized. Can a baby repent of course not and you cannot produce even one scripture in context to support baptizing babies.
Babies do not need to repent, but babies are indeed conceived into the same sinful nature that we all were, so us, just as they, must not only be born of spirit, but also of water, to inherit the kingdom of God.
dodge
New member
If you baptize a baby all you have done is get them wet !
You do understand that one has to repent to be born again right ?
Not so, because the baby fulfills the requirement of the baptism of water at a younger age than as opposed to as an adult. Obviously someone must repent before they are born again, but a baby does not commit sins to need repentance of, therefore a baby can freely become born again as opposed to an adult who first needs to repent, which is to stop sinning, before becoming born again.
dodge
New member
YOU are ignoring what Peter and the other Apostles taught in scripture to follow lies and false traditions.
Search scripture and discover that there is not one place where a baby was baptized EVER. The order taught by all of the Apostles was REPENT and then be BAPTIZED. You can do anything you want of course, but I do not believe God changes His mind to please men.
You are of course wrong no baby can understand or accept Jesus as their savior because they know NOTHING and one must repent , humble themselves to God, and by faith ( which no baby knows or has )accept the gift God provides for them in Jesus.
Is that so? Was the promise of the holy spirit not for adults and their children?
Peter replied, “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. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39 [NIV])
Were not entire households baptized, which included children?
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31 [ESV])
The salvation of God is granted by the choice of God, not the choice of men, so it matters not if a child can not yet choose to be baptized, let him be baptized by choice of the parents who have been chosen by God.
dodge
New member
?
Switch and bait much ? The promise was to all that would repent and trust God when of course they UNDERSTOOD what they were doing. You nor anyone can do faith and repentance for them. A tradition of men does not trump God's word.
)
Sure the promise was to the children also when they had reached an age to trust and believe God. If you baptize a baby you are out of order as the Apostles were taught to teach us.
AGAIN NO PLACE in scripture instructs to baptize babies NOT ONE PLACE. Children and babies are not the same.I have seen children as young as 5 that wanted to be baptized because they in their child like faith wanted to follow Jesus' commands, but baptizing a baby is man's tradition and it is men placing themselves above God's word.
The meaning is if the parents are born again they will instruct their children in the things of God like trusting Him. His word, and doing as God says.
Sure it matters and it shows that men's traditions are more important to you than God's word and commands.
Tell me, do you think babies that were circumcised on the 8th day from birth, as commanded by the Law of Moses, understood what was happening to them? Did having understanding matter, or were they simply inducted into the house of Israel on account of their parents?
dodge
New member
Old covenant and New covenant are NOT the same.
Circumscription was to set the Hebrews apart from the world and has NOTHING to do with in any sense of being baptized.
Your comparing apples and whales.
Whilest they are not the same, the old foreshadows the new, the new comes from the old. So if the old covenant commanded babies to be baptized on the 8th day, in the new covenant, why should you prevent babies from being baptized in water when they have clearly received the holy spirit? Were the Gentiles not also freely given the holy spirit, of whom were once alienated from the promises of Israel, and water baptism was subsequently not prevented to them either? Your doctrine to restrain baptism from babies is based on an error that they must choose to be baptized, when in reality it is God who chooses who will be saved, so it matters not if they themselves choose to become baptized. What matters is that they become baptized, even as a baby if necessary, to fulfill the requirement of baptism of water.
No one is saved by baptism or any other works of the law. Salvation is given by grace through faith.
Faith is belief demonstrated and supported by actions, but salvation is given by grace, not actions.
Young children are not held accountable before the age of accountability.
dodge
New member
Your still baiting and switching !
1. The Old Covenant NEVER commanded babies to be baptized they were to be circumcised, and they are NOT the same.
2.Infant baptism is exactly like purgatory which are traditions of the Roman Catholic Church that has no scripture that supports their man made traditions NONE.
3. Why not ? That would be because in the new covenant God gave instructions , just like He did with circumcision on how and when to be baptized, which is AFTER one repents.
4. It is not my doctrine ! Scripture says after one repents then to get baptized, and all your man made traditions have done are ignore God and do as you please.
5. FYI, baptism does not save anyone as scripture says. Salvation happens when one humbles them self before God admits to Him they have sinned against Him and then by faith accepts, trusts, and follows Jesus.
Ask your self this question can a baby have an understanding of a good conscience as Peter teaches ?
1Pe 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Can a baby not develop a good conscience towards God? Again, you are restraining baptism from babies on the premise that they cannot choose, yet it is not a matter of choice that they, nor even adults are saved, but by choice of God only. Which is why the holy spirit was given even to babies that were still in the womb, because they were already chosen! So water baptism ought not to be restrained from those who are chosen, even if they are still a baby. This is how it was originally done in the assemblies of the apostles.
dodge
New member
No it was NEVER done that way by the Apostles. Roman Catholics are truly great history revisionist.
You IGNORE scripture to follow the tradition and nothing more, and I truly feel sorry for you.
God has so much more and you close your eyes to Him and open them to the traditions of men.
God did not give mankind His word so men could change his word and do as they please. There are eternal consequences for changing God's word.
jsanford108
New member
Dodge,
You are throwing several items/topics around. It would be best to stick to one topic, fully discuss it, then move on to other Catholic doctrines you disagree with.
As far as baptism, you are right, "whole households were baptized and believed." But that says whole households, no? Is a baby not part of a household? Also, in every case of baptism, the people are baptized before they believe, notice that? Every case has the word "baptize" preceding "believe."
Let us examine Christ's own baptism. He was baptized, then the Holy Spirit descended.
If you want to make the argument of believing must come before baptism, then how can a mentally handicapped person be baptized? Is every single person in existence capable of acute belief? Obviously not.
Lastly, what is baptism? What purpose does it serve? (this is explicitly directed at you in a non-rhetorical sense; I honestly desire to know your answer/explanation)
Thank you for your criticisms. They definitely pave the way for in-depth discussion.
You are throwing several items/topics around. It would be best to stick to one topic, fully discuss it, then move on to other Catholic doctrines you disagree with.
As far as baptism, you are right, "whole households were baptized and believed." But that says whole households, no? Is a baby not part of a household? Also, in every case of baptism, the people are baptized before they believe, notice that? Every case has the word "baptize" preceding "believe."
Let us examine Christ's own baptism. He was baptized, then the Holy Spirit descended.
If you want to make the argument of believing must come before baptism, then how can a mentally handicapped person be baptized? Is every single person in existence capable of acute belief? Obviously not.
Lastly, what is baptism? What purpose does it serve? (this is explicitly directed at you in a non-rhetorical sense; I honestly desire to know your answer/explanation)
Thank you for your criticisms. They definitely pave the way for in-depth discussion.
Just because the Roman catholics practice this does not make this a false teaching, for even they agree that a man cannot remarry after divorce, which is indeed correct, although they err in various other doctrines and are the fulfillment of the whore of Babylon prophecy. I have indicated through scripture that there is no reason to withhold baptism for babies and children, for the baptism of the holy spirit, which is greater, was freely given to babies in the womb and even children, so why should baptism of water, which is lesser, be withheld? You are in error.
dodge
New member
All I can do is tell you the truth as God leads.
There was NO Roman Catholic Church before Constantine in his ignorance baptized his army by sprinkling water on them. There was no conversion of his whole Army. IN reality the Roman Catholic Church is nothing more than the continuation of the Roman empire, and that is why the word of God takes a back seat to the traditions of men that you are following. Try reading the bible WITHOUT the R.C.C. glasses and seek the TRUTH of God.
As Jesus said ( and the Roman Catholic Church teaches against ) in John chapter 3 "you must be born again or you will in no way enter the kingdom of God".
The scripture you believe you used to support infant baptism had NOTHING to do with infant baptism.
Infant baptism is NOT scriptural and is nothing but a tradition of men.
The Holy Spirit was given several times to infants in the womb to bring about the purposes of God but it was never done that way for the masses NEVER. Jesus and the Apostles taught the way of salvation, and NONE of them taught infant baptism.
jsanford108
New member
First, there was a RCC before Constatine. He only legalized it in the Roman Empire. Basic history here.
How does John 3 teach against infant baptism?
How is infant baptism not scriptural? If it is because it isn't explicitly stated "babies were baptized," then likewise adult baptism is not scriptural; nowhere does it say "adult only baptism" or "age of reason and above only." Also, do you believe full immersion is scriptural? There is actually no proof of that at all, and it goes against the practices logically held by desert people.
Lastly, the apostles did teach infant baptism. In Acts, "entire households" were baptized. Are babies not part of a household? Also, early writers such as Polycarp (apprentice of John the Gospel writer), Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all wrote, spoke, and taught infant baptism. All of these listed lived and taught before 130 AD (within the lifetimes of Christ and his apostles). The list goes on. If these men were the earliest Christians, why would they teach things so contrary to Scripture and Christ? They wouldn't. In fact, they would be more accurate in their time than those of us so removed today.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
dodge
New member
Wrong ! In every case in scripture REPENT precedes baptism.
Here is a verse PROVING you are wrong ! Where is your verse ?
Act 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Did the thief on the cross even get baptized ? NO because he had no opportunity yet Jesus took him to paradise with him that day.
As far as a mentally ill person is concerned I know that God is Holy and just and would not send anyone to hell that did not deserve to be there.
Baptism is being obedient to what Jesus told His followers to do , those that by faith trust His finished work completely, and is a type or picture associating them selves with the D.B.R. of their Lord and savior.
It s not personal for me it is about Truth.
I had a person ask me years ago ( most of my Fathers side of the family is R.C.) why I went to a Baptist Church and not a Roman Catholic Church. I answered because of what Jesus said in John 14:6 where Jesus said, " I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father but by me". Notice Jesus never mentioned Mary, a pope, or a human priest being needed to go to the Father. I am confident in Jesus !
Last edited: