Visit us on Facebook at 100PercentCatholic.com
John Martignoni talks about infant baptism. For this entire recording as well as other free downloads, please visit www.biblechristiansociety.com
One practice that is sometimes questioned by our non-Catholic brothers and sisters is infant baptism. They argue that a person must be at an age of accountability to know what they are doing before they take such an important step in their life. They also sometimes argue that baptism must be done by total immersion in water, and sprinkling on the head makes it invalid. Some also argue against a Trinitarian baptism (in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Well, let's investigate these claims a little further.
A good place to begin when looking for answers to questions like these is the Bible. In Acts 16:31-33 Paul and Silas tell a jailer to "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved." It then goes on to say "He and all his family were baptized at once." Here you can clearly see the head of the household believed in the Lord Jesus before the entire household was baptized. Acts 16:15 also speaks of an entire house being baptized based of the faith of one person. The Greek word used for household here is oikos, which would include all children. In 1 Corinthians 1:16 it also talks of an entire household being baptized. Notice how it does not say the entire household except for the children. Acts 2:37-39 says to "Repent and be baptized...this promise is made to you and your children." The Greek word for children used here is teknon, which is the same word used later in Acts 21:21 to refer to eight day old circumcised children.
In baptism, we enter into the New Covenant. In the Old Covenant, this was done by circumcision. But Col 2:11-12 states that baptism is the new circumcision. Yet we know that circumcision was done to infants at eight days old (Genesis 17:9-14). Even Jesus was circumcised at eight days old (Luke 2:22-32). So why would kids in the New Covenant have to wait to be a part of God's chosen people? Why would the New Covenant be narrower than the Old Covenant? Hebrews 8:6 says that the New Covenant is supposed to be better than the Old Covenant. Hebrews 10:1 says that the Old Covenant is a shadow of the new. But isn't a shadow a basic outline of something and not completely different? Nowhere in the Bible does it say to exclude children from God's covenant. Jesus says in Matthew 19:14 "Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." When we are baptized, we become members of the one body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). Again, why would you want to exclude children from being members of the body of Christ? Another interesting note is that John the Baptist received the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15). So why would you want to deny children the gift of the Holy Spirit that you receive in baptism (Acts 2:38)?
Jesus also says that baptism is necessary for salvation in John 3:5. Do you really want to take the chance and not baptize your kids and risk them missing out on heaven? Now I am not suggesting that all non-baptized babies will be damned to hell. The Catholic Church, for example, teaches of baptism by desire. This states that a person can still be saved if they, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. But the truth of the matter is that Jesus never explicitly said what happens to non-baptized kids. So the point I am trying to make is why would anyone want to take that chance?
In the Bible, we see many times that God bestows blessings or healings on one person because of the faith of another. In Luke 7:1-10, we see the centurion's servant healed because of the faith of the centurion. In Matthew 15:21-28, a daughter was healed because of the faith of the mother. And in Luke 5:17-26 a paralyzed man is brought to Jesus by his friends, and because of the faith of his friends Jesus tells the paralyzed man "Your sins are forgiven." Here we can clearly see that Jesus can forgive sins (as he does in baptism as mentioned in many places in the Bible, such as Acts 22:16) based on the faith of another (much like a parent who brings an infant to be baptized).
For the remainder of this discussion, please visit our facebook page at 100PercentCatholic.com or click on the link below
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=212562915449657
Loading...
12:55
Are We Saved By Faith Alone?by 100PercentCatholic929 views
@carriebrk I think we conversed enough, and although we disagree, we should pray for each other and go in the Peace of Christ. Blessings to you and wish you the best. Amen!
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk Good point but you still have protestants who deny the Trinity! The difference is the fact that Jesus is Divine and one with the Father is clear. But Faith alone has so many verses that don't back it up. And in fact the Bible says we are not saved by faith alone. In scripture the bible is clear that traditions handed down through writing and oral should be followed, Not just scripture, Not to mention the Church, not the Bible is the foundation of the Faith. Trinity not the same
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@wealththinkers - well trinity isn't a specified in scripture either - it's doctrine as a result of a compilation. The word translated "inspired" literally means "God breathed" - why wouldn't I give God's inspired Word hightest authority? We're instructed to test all teaching against it, study it diligently as if mining for silver or gold, bind it in our hearts and minds, follow it's statutes etc. John calls Jesus "the Word made flesh" , so yeah, that's the authority.
carriebrk 3 months ago
@carriebrk The word alone and only are probably the most misused words by protestants, who generally use them for doctrine, but the words never appear in scripture as they describe. In fact, if you can find Scripture alone or only I would like to see that too. Maybe you should just rewrite the Gospels like the Paulicians did. They removed 3 of the 4 Gospels from scripture.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@wealththinkers 22Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; You can read 26 in context also.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk "only Jesus' sacrifice can atone for our sins-pay the penalty for them" .Show me where is says ONLY! I will accept the word ALONE! also. Show me Faith Alone? Show me Faith only? No one verse state what you just said. Funny how you use 2 Tim but it doesn't say anything about faith alone and in fact is supportive of good works. look at verse 19.....
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@100PercentCatholic They referred always to the "Gospel and Apostle", apparently only St. Luke and St. Paul, The Paulicians were Adoptionists (believing that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism) by the way the did reject infant baptism. the New Testament, should be the only text used by the followers. they refused to honor the Cross since they maintained that Christ had not been crucified. They did However deny all sacrements and believed in Faith Alone. but hardly Christian beliefs.
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk Jesus according to the Cathars did not exist in the flesh, and did not suffer. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. Hardly beliefs found in Scripture. The Paulicians also thought all matter to be bad. The denied the divinity of Christ, Spoke of Christ as an angel. They denied he was born of a Virgin. his real mother was Jerusalem. They rejected St. Peter's epistles
wealththinkers 3 months ago
@carriebrk Catharists (also known as the Albigensians) are not Christians period. Listen to these beliefs they had: Matter is Evil. Two Gods, the Evil God of the Old Testament, and the the Good God, Christ from the New Testament. Marriage was evil but fornication was allowed. Death by suicide, mainly starvation, was promoted as a way to leave this evil world, it was forced on many. They did not believe in any authority, and would not obey any government.
wealththinkers 3 months ago