for Christians & Messianic Jews
Non-denominational
Home

Forum index page

I know that the main page claims to be non denominational but many of the articles sure seem to have outside influences. Infant baptism is a denominational practice, is it not? Whoever wrote this article (http://www.bibleprobe.com/baptism.htm) is confusing me. The author seems very dedicated to following the whole council of God where Jesus and Apostles baptized believers in water for remission of sins.

Infants cannot obey Mark 16:16 because they don't believe. Baptism did not become a catholic command until the council of Mela in 416 AD. This is supposed to be a non-denominational site but then the author cites a link to a Lutheran article(dead link). Okay??? If infant baptism is essential, why did Jesus and the Apostles never do this in the Bible? The claim is that this is non-denomin yet inherited sin is also a Calvanist doctrine.

Jesus taught we ought to all become like little children in Matthew 18:3. Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor shall the father bear the guilt of the son." Ezekiel 28:15, "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you." I John 3:4 says we have to COMMIT sin, not inherit it. I don't understand why infants need baptized because that is completely opposite of the Bible. The Bible seems to say their is personal accountability. Baptizing a baby won't matter because the baby has no clue what you just did other than get him wet. How is that accountability? Should I believe my infant is a sinner and is accountable just being brought into the world?

I have yet to find any example of babies being baptized in my Bible, or in history outside of Catholicism. Probably because it's not in there. Either the webmasters are wrong, or my Bible is. Not trying to be mean spirited, I want honest answers from those who are educated in this. Thanks!

RE: http://www.bibleprobe.com/baptism.htm

You can't go wrong by following "Apostolic Tradition", regardless of what some renegade denominations teach. The apostles of Jesus baptised entire families, including infants. Perhaps they saw Jesus baptizing infants. Or, perhaps in the 3 years they spent with Jesus, they were told to baptise infants by Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles and early Church history testify to this.

What more can I say? I think that those who second guess what the apostles did and taught -- are making grave mistakes.

I note that Catholics and mainline Baptists follow apostolic tradition.

perhaps in the 3 years they spent with Jesus, they were told to baptize infants by Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles testify to this.

What more can I say? I think that those who second guess what the apostles did and taught -- are making grave mistakes.


I agree, we should follow the Apostles actions as they were inspired. However, it should be noted that Christ and the Apostles pointed people to scripture, not oral traditions. Jesus fended off Satan with "It is written". Jesus referenced scripture A LOT! Acts 17:11-12 shows the Apostles telling Thessalonians to search scripture daily to justify their beliefs. And there's 2 TIM 3:16 showing scripture is sufficient.

It sounds like you are saying, because the Baptists and Catholic church does it, that makes it right. No offense, but history (as I already explained) does not conclude that the Apostles ever baptized infants. It was adopted in the 5th century. I don't want to just do something because religious men did it for a thousand years before me. That concept is second guessing what God commanded. Besides, the majority of the Apostles were dead 2 generations before Catholicism even gets started. I am not all that interested in what traditions are out there, but curious if the Bible says "infants were baptized". If it doesn't say it, I'm not going to do it because God made it clear not to overstep the scriptures and insert our own ideas or opinions. I am respectfully asking for scriptures alone. Thanks for the reply.

You wrote: the majority of the Apostles were dead 2 generations before Catholicism even gets started

I really have to beg to differ with you about that.

Catholicism traces all the way back to the Apostle Peter!

Consider these statements about "Linus", the Pope (Bishop of Rome) who directly followed Peter:

The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:
"After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus."

Linus was also mentioned in II Timothy 4:21

Regarding the early church and INFANT baptism:

The Early Church (closest to and taught by the apostles)
Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God..... especially infants. . . those newly born."

Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9: "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit."

Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. Cyprian’s reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).

To prevent misunderstanding by rural bishops, perhaps not as well-schooled as other or even new to the faith, the Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: "If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema."

Those SDA's who always end an argument by saying, we must not follow the "traditions of men" are entirely in error. Apostolic traditions are based on sound theolical fact. Those who preach against these (such as Seventh Day Adventists do; and an offshoot of Mormonism the Community of Christ do) do so because their own contrived "doctrines" conflict with what the apostles did and taught.

Yikes! Where to begin...

My question was if the Bible supported infant baptism. After more research it's clear that we've settled the scriptures do not command that.
Infants are not sinners: Ezekiel 18:20, Ezekiel 28:15, I John 3:4, James 4:17, Matthew 18:3
*They can't believe, confess or repent, therefor can't obey the gospel: Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:36-37, Romans 10:10


Thanks for posting Kasten's article. It certainly didn't add any light on the subject other than the idea that men's doctrines are more important than Christ's. Funny, the reformation of the Catholic church created Dennis's Lutheran branch, which reverted back to sola scriptura! So he is actually a hypocrite for taking that stance because it's a tradition, not a scripture. The whole concept was if the Bible did not command it, you didn't do it. So much for non-denominationalism. I dont think I'm wrong when I say the articles on this site will use any doctrine around that supports the webmaster's belief system, regardless what the Bible says.

Peter was not a Pope, that is a century old argument that is not only unscriptural but unfactual. Can anyone cite any non-catholic sources to back this up? Peter was married (1 Cor 9:5), he denied the Lord 3 times (Mt. 26:69-75), he was rebuked by the Lord (Mt. 16:23), he was called a heretic by Paul (Gal. 2:11), he wasn't better than the other 11 apostles (Mt. 18:18; 2 Cor.11:5;12:11), he was never called a Pope/Papa, never called Vicar of Christ, never mentioned successors, Jesus said the church would be built upon the "rock", or Petra (a mass of rock) in Mt. 16:18 yet Peter in Greek means "detached stone", Peter said Jesus was the chief cornerstone (Acts 4:12; Eph. 2:20) etc etc. There is no biblical or historicity to verify Peter was a Pope unless you ask someone in Vatican city. The words "Pope", "infallible", and "vicar of Christ" are never even used in the Bible. The first Pope wasn't even declared to be infallible until the 11th century anyway. You should realize that a man trying to be the infallible vicar of Christ is impossible according to Jesus (for all men have sinned and fall short) and it's idolatry for putting man on the same level as God. This is off my original topic but you are making claims you can't back up with scripture or historical facts, just stories handed down by Bishops and Popes.

You've made it very clear your agenda is to defend your denominational beliefs regardless what history and the Bible actually says. But I digress...

I consider this question, case closed. You have answered my questions by showing lack of support from the scripture. I don't want that on my concience, so thank you for helping me dig deeper into my Bible.

I'm sorry you think you know better than the Apostles and early Church fathers who walked and talked with the apostles, and were taught by them, vis-a-vis "infant baptism"... I may be entirely wrong, but I'll go out on a limb here and ask: "Are you a Seventh Day Adventist"?

Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Title Pope didn't come into being for a very long time after Peter. But it is quite clear that Peter was looked up to as the leader of the Church outside of Jerusalem (James was the leader in Jerusalem). Their is a clear line of succession after Peter. Bishops of Rome did choose their successors. Linus was likely the 2nd Bishop of Rome after Peter. This (succession) is rather clear to anyone who has ever studied Church History and from statements by Irenaeus. I'm not going to say, that these Pope's were always honest. Some were even scoundrels. And the succession gets mirky around 900 AD-1100 AD. But that isn't the question here.

At one time we were all known as "Catholic". Which really means the "Universal Christian Church"...

You can call them Pope's, or Bishops of Rome, or prominent presbyter-bishop. It's semantics...

The Apostolic Church Elder Irenaeus claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:

"After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus."

67 AD Peter martyred, crucified upside down in Rome
67-78 Pope Linus, 2nd Pope, succeeds Peter (Linus mentioned in 2 Tm 4,21). Tertullian names Clement (Catholics know him as Saint Clement) to have been the first successor to the apostle Peter, but all other accounts unanimously have Linus as the first bishop of Rome following the apostle Peter. The Vatican's "Annuario Pontificio" (2003) cites the year 68. The discrepancy may be explained by Linus already being Peter's adjutor during his lifetime. Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre, writing in the 3rd century writes about Linus: "whom the apostle mentions in his epistle to the Romans, was bishop of Rome after the holy apostle Peter."

79-91 Pope Anacletus, 3rd Pope, known as "blameless" (as in Titus 1,7?)

91-101 Pope Clement I, 4th Pope, (mentioned in Phil 4,3), wrote letter to Corinth in 95 called "1 Clement"

314-335 Pope Silvester I, 33rd Pope --probably around when word "Pope" or (Latin for "papa") was first used.

I'm sorry you think you know better than the Apostles and early Church fathers who walked and talked with the apostles, and were taught by them, vis-a-vis "infant baptism"...

Don't put words in people's mouths, I never said that. In fact, most early church theologians disagree with the Roman Catholic decent entirely. It shows you have a one track mind. I follow the Bible alone, which documents Christ's life. I follow scripture alone because it is EXACTLY what Christ and the Apostles taught and commanded us to do. Dont criticize me for doing what I am commanded to do sir/maddam. You are the one teaching principles not found in the Bible, you have to admit that.


I'm not going to say, that these Pope's were always honest. Some were even scoundrels. And the succession gets mirky around 900 AD-1100 AD. But that isn't the question here.

Popes were scoundrals yet they are still infallible? There is no biblical pattern for there to even be a pope or father of a church, other than Jesus/God. So even if you could provide proof that Peter was called a Bishop/Pope(there isn't), it would be idolatry and blasphemy against the Bible meaing Peter fell away. The Bible teaches autonomy for each congregration/collection of saints. Christ is the head, not a Pope, Cardinal, Bishop or Priest. According to YOU church history proves your point. Have you ever studied outside of papacy writings?


At one time we were all known as "Catholic". Which really means the "Universal Christian Church"...

Call me crazy but DISCIPLES were called Christians FIRST at Antioch. The word Catholic is never used in the Bible. The only thing universal about Roman Catholicism is the fact they collect money from all other churches to fund their own works, yet another direct violation of scripture.


You can call them Pope's, or Bishops of Rome. It's semantics...

Semantics? No. You are using the word Bishop out of translation anyway. The true word is Episcopos, not the English word Bishop. If you read the septuagint under Acts 20:17,28, Tit 1:5,7, and 1 Pet 5:1-2 the words elder, presbyter, overseer all refer to the same "office". Regardless, the overseer idea was only valid for authority for decision making for a LOCAL CONGREGATION, not all churches on Earth. The reason God commanded each church be autonomous was so corruption from a hierarchical system could not effect all churches answering to a head organization. It would take blindness to not see that in scripture. If the head of the church is Christ himself there is no corruption.


The Apostolic Church Elder Irenaeus claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:

Irenaeus was writing in the late 2nd century, I guess after nearly 170 years you still consider whatever he says to be infallible proof over the Bible. It's your choice to disobey the Bible and follow men. Apostles were inspired and 1 Cor 13:8 shows that infallibility and Holy Sprit gifts did not continue through the lineage of disciples.



I've studied the history and lineage of Papacy and why it's not only idolatrous but unscriptural. I only asked simple questions about scripture, and you have turned this entire purpose around trying to prove we need to rely on men's traditions over the Bible. You can give men more credit by calling them "church fathers" but they were not inspired by God, that is a fact! Even from a common sense approach, a total idiot would say if you wanted to follow God's plan that you would study the word he gave man in the Bible. Not what men distorted to conform religion to for their own purposes.

Scripture itself tells us to heed the traditions (apostolic traditions) of the early church!

2 Thessalonians 2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

You keep saying "man's traditions". Just the same way a Seventh Day Adventist does. You didn't answer my question. Are you an SDA?

Bash the Critics is what the Seventh Day Adventists do. In this case the "critics" are the apostles of Jesus and those early church fathers that they taught and walked with.

Seventh Day Adventists will always go out of their way to try and minimize and downgrade the extreme importance of "Apostolic Traditions" passed down to us through the centuries. Why? Because their own made up doctrines such as "no Infant Baptism" and "Saturday Sabbath" (Sabbatarianism) (See Colossians 2:16) was NEVER taught in the early church, or at any time up till the era of the Anabaptists (for no infant baptism). In the 1,500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant Baptism was the heretic Tertullian (160 - 215), bishop of Carthage, Africa.

Personally, I think it is a shameless, cruel act - the withholding of Baptism from Infants. Infant Baptism had been practiced in each generation since Christ’s command in the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 18-20) to baptize all nations irrespective of age. There is simply no good reason why infants shouldn't be baptised. They can do it again later if they like. But infants need the protection of Baptism.

Trusting in what the apostles taught and did like baptising infants -would blow the whole Seventh Day Adventist "business model" away. Because these contradict apostolic tradition. An offshoot of Mormonism called the Community of Christ also denies infants baptism in defiance of apostolic tradition.

"Cults" will always defend their lies and deviations by claiming something like what they disagree with "are only traditions of men" anyways. Always some half truth or lie from a cultish group/church will attract and "tickle the ears" of millions of Christians who have little or no groundings or education about their Christian Faith.

Cyril of Jerusalem
"Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean" (Catechetical Lectures 4:37 [A.D. 350]).

Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

"Traditions of men" is what SDA's call "apostolic traditions". I think they feel this gets them off the hook for their new anathema doctrines. It has always been a good way to fill up numbers in a splinter church. Just create your own doctrine and call everyone else a "bonehead" for not agreeing with your brand spanking new dogmas. Then remember to keep telling each other "we are the good ones" and those over there are the "bad ones". It guarantees to snatch Christians who know nothing about apostolic tradition. At the recent SDA General Conference Session, Bert Haloviak, the SDA Director of Archives & Statistics reported some alarming statistics: "...nearly 1.5 million left membership in the SDA church during the time period 2000 to 2005. 'The bottom line for this quinquennium is that for every 100 accessions, more than 35 others decided to leave,' he told delegates.

The "cult" can normally be spotted rather easily, because it goes about building up its "empire" of followers, built on half truths and outright lies. It will always get caught in their lies when they directly contradict Jesus, as Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and Christian Science do. A cult will also have some other "revelation" outside holy Scripture that they rely on, which creates their dogmas. Mormons do (John Smith), Christian Scientists do (Mary Baker Eddy), Jehovah Witnesses do (their own made up Bible), Scientology does (L. Ron Hubbard) Islam does (Muhammad); and so do Seventh Day Adventists. SDA's rely on writings of Ellen White.

You scream "Scripture alone". But have you stopped to think, it was the Catholic Church who decided what you call Scripture? They gathered, protected and Canonized the books you know in the Bible. What they rejected you reject. What they accepted - you accept as gospel. What the Catholic Church decided was divine, you accept as divine.

It is this thinking that Scripture is all you need that has caused these theological errors such as no infant baptism and Saturday worship (Sabbatarianism) which some sects teach - and which the apostles of Jesus and their immediate followers (early church fathers) never taught.

This faith, according to Irenaeus, is found in the Scriptures and summarized in the Rule of Faith. The proof that this is the true faith is that the "Great Church" could point to a visible succession of teachers, presbyters, and bishops who taught the same things throughout the world: This is the teaching common to all apostles and the churches founded by them. The leaders of many of these churches had been taught by the apostles themselves, or disciples of the apostles, and they "neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about." Reference: Christian History & Biography, Fall 2007, page 32

For anyone lost to these arguments, below are some reference pages at BibleProbe.com

Related

Learn about Seventh Day Adventists here:
http://www.bibleprobe.com/SDA.htm

Learn about Infant Baptism in the early Church here:
http://www.bibleprobe.com/baptism-infants.htm

Augustine

Augustine (354 - 430), writing about this time in De Genesi Ad Literam, X: 39, declares, "The custom of our mother church in baptizing infants must not be . . . accounted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the apostles."

He further states, "If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." And again, "Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ."

This is the last reply I will honor you with since it is obvious you cannot be wrong. I have said it 3 times now, THANK YOU FOR PROVING YOU CAN'T ANSWER WITH SCRIPTURE! Christ, God and the Apostles never baptized an infant in the Bible. PERIOD.

Notice in your reply, you had ONE verse from the Bible and a dozen from writings done by men. We can't see eye to eye because your agenda is an obvious one. Follow whatever YOU believe regardless of God's word. I've quoted passage after passage that denies your every claim but you retort back with writings of men. See the pattern here? You can yell Canonicity all you want but it's a pathetic argument. It is you who has not researched history of the scribes.

I am not a 7th Day Adventist, so you just wasted your time trying to prove I belong to a cult. Sadly, you assumed again. You are only interested in unity if everyone agrees with you personally, it's not Christianity at all. I know you will reply again with more disregard for what God has commanded. I challenge anyone to prove God or Christ commanded Infants to be baptized IN THE BIBLE. They do not need salvation from pure innocence. I've already shown you several verses that say exactly that; you chose to combat the Bible with philosophical traditions of men who weren't even Apostles. If you deny the literal words of the Bible it's not I that is in denial. Enjoy your forum, I won't bother quoting scripture here anymore since you clearly you only care about the doctrines of men.

Turbo6:

You and I just view Baptism & apostolic tradition in a fundamentally different way. We are both Christians otherwise, and both love the Lord.

For me, Baptism is for the remission of both Original and Actual sin. It remits only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin. Baptism remits both original and actual sin in the case of older persons. I think an adult must also be sincerely sorry for these sins and ask forgiveness from the Lord.

Regarding your claim that infant baptism is not found anywhere in Scripture.. It isn't if you have some sort of reason to think this, such as belonging to a splinter denomination that teaches against infant baptism. If you have not been brain-washed then the command to perform infant baptism is everywhere, both in apostolic tradition (what the apostles and early church fathers said & did) and in Scripture itself.

Don't skip over the Acts of the Apostles. And don't 2nd guess the Lord when He told you that Baptism is necessary for salvation. If we believe the Lord in this --then we certainly should not deny baptism to infants - who like we adults can and do pass from this life without a moments notice.

Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. The Lord Jesus included even children in this: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14).

In Acts 2:38 Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "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." Please take special notice that Peter did not restrict this teaching to adults. Peter then added in Acts 2:39: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

We also read: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 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."

Paul's parallel between baptism & circumcision:
Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Colossians 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

Colossians 2:11–12
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Wasn't Jesus circumcized on the eight day after His birth? Wasn't He presented in the Temple after 40 days in accordance with the Law? This is the moment that Jesus, as an infant, entered into the covenental relationship with God that began with Abraham. But in the New Testament, the sign of the covenental relationship is water baptism. I do believe that all this is explained in the bible. You just have to put two and two together, just like you have to read the whole bible from cover to cover to understand the concept of God's covenant with man. Do your homework, dude!

Which versed show infants were immersed in the Name of the Messiah?

First off DUDE, you should know better since you claim to have read the whole Bible.

Are you saying that an infant begins some magical covenant with God if they are dipped in water? I'm sure God loves that fact that men FORCED a completely ignorant person to be baptized. I could shove a 5 year old atheist down into the water but it hardly saves his soul or begins any covenant. If you can't see that you are blind. Jesus's teaching shows an act of making change, believing and confessing Him as Christ, and repenting. Infants can't do any of that. It's a concious choice, not a forced one. Inherited and original sin is a false teaching, I've plainly shown that above. Go read the scriptures if you like. For it was written!

I believe we are all in search for truth and Peace, but the difference is you are using tradition in unapproved ways, essentially replacing God's word with your own. 2 Tim 2:15 says to show ourselves approved to God by studying. Do you think he meant them to wait 150 years, then study Catholicism? 2 Thessalonians 2:15 shows SCRIPTURE is the tradition we are commanded to obey. Even Bibleprobe tried to use Irenaeus' writings to prove there are verbal traditions not in the Bible. I agree there are Biblical Apostolic church father teachings but they all actually quote scriptural ideas. There is nothing in Irenaeus' letter against Heresies (book 3) that does not align to exactly what the new testament teaches. You could make the same argument for Tertullian about 20 years later in his writing. Even if they had written about infant baptism it wouldn't matter because they were not inspired as Apostles were, and could clearly adopt creeds to their beliefs, even if it was unbiblical and wrong. Men are not perfect. But to continue and spread a false teaching in the name of tradition hardly makes it just.

Infant baptism is never inferred or commanded by God, Jesus, or the Apostles. God made it clear to unly follow the Gospel delivered to us, whether spoken by mouth or written. Why go beyond that? Instead of always trying to push the line in the sand to prove our own opinions, why can't we just follow the Bible for safety sake? Denominational teachers will cling to man-made creeds even when they overstep the Bible, all for tradition's sake. It's a matter of pride, not truth!

I agree with you, Lorenzo. Paul compares circumcision to the replacement by baptism in Christ's sacrifice in Colossians 2:11-12. He did not say that an offering was not necessary, simply that it was replaced. I do not see why, with this comparison that Paul chose to use, it would exclude children. Christ makes a point of showing us that children are not too "ignorant" to receive the Kingdom. He says that anyone who causes the children to sin would be better off with a millstone tied around their neck and tossed into the sea. He also stopped the disciples from hindering the infants in Luke 18:15-22 (as well as Matt 19:14), saying "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God". Maybe not a baptism verse, but it does suggest to me that we are not to restrict them because we believe that they are too young to accept Christ. My children are sons of God and I had them baptized. Now, having received the gifts of The Spirit, they will be able to confess that Jesus is Lord (1 Cor 12:3). Win/win!

Off the subject, I am having a hard time finding the verse in the NT that tells us not to judge those who fast/don't fast... do you know where it is?

---
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
~~Matthew 22:37

Where exactly is it written in scripture that there is an age limit on baptism? Where does the Bible even mention the "age of reason" that your theology is based on? Clearly you haven't read your Bible enough to understand that the underlying theme of the Bible is God's covenant relationship with man, first with the Israelites and then with the Gentiles. The sign of this covenant for the Jews was circumcision, performed on the eighth day after birth. In the New Covenant, this sign is water baptism, and Jesus clearly states:

"Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
6
What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.

So by your theology you exclude children from the Kingdom of God, when Jesus says in another passage:

Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

This has been the clear teaching of the Church for two thousand years, but since you and your ancestors separated themselves from the Church, beginning with Luther, you have to rely soley on scripture, which isn't explicit either way. Unfortunately, you not only ignore all of scripture, but history as well, otherwise you would listen to what the ancient Church believed.

from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.50 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.51


1251
Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52


1252
The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53
Faith and Baptism


1253
Baptism is the sacrament of faith.54 But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"


1254
For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.


1255
For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized—child or adult—on the road of Christian life.55 Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium).56 The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.

Angela, are you asking about Colossians 2:16-19 maybe?

Where exactly is it written in scripture that there is an age limit on baptism?

It has nothing to do with age, I agree. The requirements were simple. Those who were baptized in the Bible BELIEVED and CONFESSED. An infant cannot do this. Logically your argument is stupid, and scripturally it's even worse. I can shove a murderer down into the water but that does not make him a believer, he has not confessed Christ, therefor he's not saved. A covenant only begins with God if the person believes with their heart. An infant can't do this. They won't even remember that you baptized them so how does that show repentance for sins or making change in their life? When all the Jews were accused murdering Christ at Pentacost they were told to REPENT, then be baptized for remission of sins. Scriptures shows infants are sinless, can't repent, can't believe in Christ, and have no reason to be baptized. Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself? How about you read this WHOLE discussion before you jumped in here spreading your opinions. Plenty of scripture was listed above that emphatically shows the Bible patterns I speak of.


Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

Funny how when you read the whole passage in context Jesus is talking about being innocent like a child, yet you are twisting that around trying to prove Jesus said to baptize children. It's not a command to do so and inferring that it is... just wow!


This has been the clear teaching of the Church for two thousand years, but since you and your ancestors separated themselves from the Church, beginning with Luther, you have to rely solely on scripture, which isn't explicit either way. Unfortunately, you not only ignore all of scripture, but history as well, otherwise you would listen to what the ancient Church believed.

So basically anyone who does not subscribe to Catholicism's 2nd century creations is not following the word? The Bible was pretty darn explicit on the requirements of all those who were baptized in the Bible. Read every single example of conversion in the new testament. Never is an infant baptized, and every case will show a repentant heart. I have provided MASSES of scripture, yet you say I ignore it all. History also proves my point of infant baptism not beginning until well after the Apostles and Jesus were gone. The "ancient church" who I consider to be Peter, Paul, Timothy etc. all taught against church division, hierarchy of organizations, central collections and denominationalism that you are claiming is the true church. Look up FALLACY in the dictionary. To support your OPINIONS based on men's writings, you have to ignore the commandments of Christ himself. I am done arguing with you Catechism teachers.

Turbo6:

I'd hate to be you and have to face even one soul who died as an infant without being baptised - IF - and I don't know for sure - they could not enter Heaven because they were not baptised. Because their parents believed your preaching on this subject.

The fact of the matter is, the Lord said one MUST be baptised of both water and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes with baptism. Age of reason has nothing at all to do with anything. Would you put your young child in your car without the protection of a secure car seat? Probably not. Then why do you allow your infant to live even one day longer without the protection of baptism? Maybe the Lord knew that Satan can attack infants and children who haven't been baptised. Why second guess the Lord and what the apostles taught?

Why not right now take another Christian with you as a witness. Go to a sink and baptise your infant (in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) as a protection against Satanic attacks on the child? When they reach an "age of reason" they can confirm this baptism by being baptised again if they like. You won't because you have been brain-washed by some splinter group who fill their pews by thumbing their noses at apostolic tradition...

For you to post on a worldwide forum that in essence the Lord doesn't know what He is talking about is quite amazing - considering you think yourself a Christian.

Why would you ever second guess what the Lord said? Because an explicit command to baptise infants is not found in Scripture? Yet, it is everwhelmingly found in writings of the apostles and those early church fathers who walked and talked with the apostles. I showed you in an above post where Scripture itself says "Scripture is not enough". You need to balance this with early Church tradition. I call it "apostolic tradition". If you think that is too "Catholicly" then feel free to call it early church tradition. Scripture tells us to "pay heed to tradition"! But you have some sort of "mental block" so that doesn't seem to fit into your "world view" - so you'll ignore that I guess.

A command to do Saturday worship is not found explicitly in Scripture. But nearly all (including Paul who kept the practice out of habit himself) church fathers taught Saturday worship, circumcision, and Jewish dietary laws are no longer binding on Christians. Yet they remain binding to the Jews who rejected Jesus. Moses Himself taught that Saturday worship was given to the nation of ISRAEL as a reminder of the Lord getting them out of bondage in Egypt. Saturday worship is a thing between the Jews and God.

Abortion is not named in Scripture. But thou shall not kill is. When a so-called "doctor" reaches in and crushes a baby's head, or poisons the young soul with an injection - both the so-called "doctor" and the mother who hired this diabolical "doctor fiend" are comitting murder.

The actual word word "homos-exual" is not contained in Scripture. But countless references to it as an "abomination" to God are. Early church fathers are unanimous that this sin disgusts God.

Logically your argument is stupid, and scripturally it's even worse.

Yet, you continue with...

I can shove a murderer down into the water but that does not make him a believer, he has not confessed Christ, therefor he's not saved.

and later continue with your translation of Luke 18 (you know, where you tried to slam me and completely missed the whole, "maybe not a baptism verse, but...") to prove your own belief that children are innocent of sin. Somehow, I am having a hard time figuring out the point of your comparison between a murderer and a child that you believe to be without sin. I still see that as meaning that the children are not too young to accept Christ and should not be forbidden from doing so.

You say,

Funny how when you read the whole passage in context Jesus is talking about being innocent like a child, yet you are twisting that around trying to prove Jesus said to baptize children. It's not a command to do so and inferring that it is... just wow!

Who took it out of context? Just as where Christ said that whoever humbles themselves like the little child will receive the Kingdom... I take it as whoever accepts Him with childlike faith... of course, not restricted to faith. Not to mention the fact that the disciples stopped them and He said to let the children come to Him... do not forbid them.


A covenant only begins with God if the person believes with their heart. An infant can't do this.
Wow, I wonder if anybody ever told the Jews this! Maybe you should explain it to God, He seems to be confused as well. Maybe you should take Lorenzo's advice and research circumcision. In Leviticus 27, even the animals paid a ransom for sin... and children down to 1 month old (verse 6). A one month old with sin? Shocking! God marked their heads... please tell me how you will explain to God that He is wrong? Why did He have the firstborn from every womb consecrated (one ex. Exodus 13:2)?

Are you familiar with the presentation? Luke 2:22 When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”b), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”c


They won't even remember that you baptized them so how does that show repentance for sins or making change in their life?
You baptize to receive the Spirit of God. They receive divine grace to avoid spiritual death.

When all the Jews were accused murdering Christ at Pentacost they were told to REPENT, then be baptized for remission of sins.
Yes, they were not baptized as infants. It was actually a pretty new concept to be baptized with Spirit and water. Had they already been baptized, they probably would have been sent to Peter or Paul to be absolved from their sins.

Scriptures shows infants are sinless, can't repent, can't believe in Christ, and have no reason to be baptized.
1 Kings 8:46 tells us that there is nobody without sin.

Adam and Eve fell from a state of Grace and Holiness into a state of sin. Jesus nailed that sin to the cross. We need to be baptized in Christ to obtain eternal life.

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. The only dispute would be that we would never physically die had he not eaten the apple.

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come... and 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

First you say :

How about you read this WHOLE discussion before you jumped in here spreading your opinions.

Then...

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."
Funny how when you read the whole passage in context Jesus is talking about being innocent like a child, yet you are twisting that around trying to prove Jesus said to baptize children. It's not a command to do so and inferring that it is... just wow!


Let me try this again. I said, "Maybe not a baptism verse, but it does suggest to me that we are not to restrict them because we believe that they are too young to accept Christ." Maybe you should have read the WHOLE post before you came in here spreading your own opinions.

I am done arguing with you Catechism teachers.
Doubtful, dude.

---
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
~~Matthew 22:37

That's great! Thanks so much!

---
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
~~Matthew 22:37

2nd off Dude (Turbo6). Jesus said to do it (water baptism). So that should be enough for you. It is for me.

Acts 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. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Full households were baptized in Acts 16:15;33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16

UPDATE :
Sorry bibleprobe, you guys really had a lot of information going back and forth (I kept some of your information for my notes)... I didn't notice that you had already brought that one up! I typed every other verse that I used in this thread into the search engine here, I should have done the same for Acts 2!

You are one smart cookie!

---
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
~~Matthew 22:37

The command from the Lord Himself was:

(ESV)
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(DRB)
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

He never said to baptize "in His Name" only.

Whether they were "immersed" in water, just sprinkled with water, or even doused with water, the intent of Baptism remains the same.

Peace be with you!

fezik82:

No! Not some smart cookie at all. I'm more like a "trained monkey". LOL. Since about 2000 we (myself, Bunkster, Ray, Lorenzo, Bobby K, Kathy, Perry, Lacy, Charliebuttons and others.) have been through these same exact arguments over and over.

Things are typically quiescent here. But then suddenly a Muslim, a Mason, or a Seventh Day Adventist -- or on a rare occassion, a real live Homosex-ual arrives -- and there we go again.

We are dealing with "brain-washed"; but otherwise good Christians. Since they were small children many, many have been "brain-washed" by splinter groups regarding infant baptism and Saturday worship. This false teaching against infant baptism is a very serious thing, a serious threat to the kingdom of God. Usually, you can trace these false teachings back to the Seventh Day Adventists.

Bobby K is Christian village elder (like a mayor) in the Phillippines. When he pops in you know things are heating up.

Thanks for standing up for CHRISTmas and the Emperor Constantine below. Read my thanks in that thread below...

You aren't a "celebral pigmie" yourself... Keep up the good research...

You're very welcome, and thank you for the compliments! I am very glad that you don't think that I am a "celebral pygmy" !

I think I am getting the flu... the headache is so bad that my vision is blurry! I don't think that I will be on for a few days.

---
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
~~Matthew 22:37

and what power there is in the name of the Holy Trinity!

I decided to check the cross-references for Psalms 51:5 and found these verses to embrace infant baptism :

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

John 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

---
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
~~Matthew 22:37