What is the purpose of infant baptism?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,656
3,591
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You missed it. They had to be re-baptized in the name of Jesus, which you are not. You’re baptized in a silly way. As an unrepentant baby.
The Bible never mentions this “re-Baptism” that YOU and your cult promotes.
It CLEARLY states:

ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all (Eph. 4:5-6).
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2018
27,359
14,803
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
“Pray”[/FONT][/B] simply means “ASK”. We can ASK fellow members of the Body of Christ to pray for us – whether they are here on earth or in Heaven.


In Heaven…? Uh no.
:rolleyes:

Well aware you pray TO DEAD PEOPLE.

Well aware Scripture teaches to PRAY TO God FOR others.

James 4:16… pray one FOR another
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
14,082
7,310
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
I don’t care about what a renegade priest tells me. I go straight to the Magisterium.
Unfortunately, there are some priests who get it wrong.

I heard a priest explain to a congregation once that the miracle of the Feeding of the 5000 was NOT about Jesus multiplying the food – but that that they shared what they had brought with them.

He was a wrong as your priest friend who tells you that we can reject Catholic doctrine and still be in good standing. Your Protestant Fathers were guilty of this very thing . . .


PS – I thought you were “done” with me.

Hmmmm . . .
1. What priest friend?
I have only one?

2. Yes. The story about the feeding of the 5,000 was explained incorrectly.
This is why the CC IS IN TROUBLE.

3. Not only is the CC upset about how you represent her,,,
but God is too.

Jesus wanted unity.
He wanted His disciples to love each other.

You don't know anything about love.
So you don't know God either.
1 John 4:8
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2018
27,359
14,803
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And while they're still ALIVE.

Sheesh!


Some people definitely have comprehension issues with teeny tiny words….such as …
TO or FOR
IS or AS

Prayer is TO God.
Jesus appeared AS an earthly human man.
Jesus IS Spirit.

Matt 6:
[9] After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven…

Phil 2:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man…

Glory to God,
Taken
 

Athanasius377

Member
Apr 7, 2023
120
42
28
49
Independence
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's not true either. Invincible ignorance gets one off the hook. "Romish Dogma" is insulting, but you do it automatically without thinking. "Romish Dogma" is not invincible ignorance, it's bigotry, related to racism.
+++
Different variants of the "Roman" insult appeared at different times.
  • The earliest form of the insult was the noun "Romanist" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525.
  • The next to develop was the adjective "Romish" (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535.
  • Next came the noun "Roman Catholic" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined approximately 1595-1605
  • . Shortly thereafter came the verb "to Romanize" (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10.
  • Then between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun "Romanism" (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and
This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all-even national or racial ones) has such a complex of insults woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say "Catholic" without qualifying it or replacing it with a Romish insult.
source
Bigot? that's the best you got? You funny.

I suppose catholic slanders doesn't have ready made copy and paste response that is sufficiently long enough to bore the daylights of the reader so bigot is what I am.
The reason I use the terms Romish, or Romanist, or Papalist is because Rome is not catholic and has not been for centuries. So if I use the term catholic to refer to the papalist/romish church you can bet it was a mistake.
 

Athanasius377

Member
Apr 7, 2023
120
42
28
49
Independence
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Addressing a jubilant crowd of more than 500,000 people packed into St. Peter's Square, Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in "Munificentissimus Deus" on Nov. 1, 1950, that the "Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." Although the solemn definition may have been at the midpoint of the 20th century, the belief in the Assumption of our Blessed Mother exemplifies the dynamism of revelation and the Church's ongoing understanding of it as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Granted, the word Assumption does not appear in Sacred Scripture. For this reason many fundamentalists who literally interpret the Bible would have a difficulty with this belief. Nevertheless, we must first pause and reflect on the role of our Blessed Mother in the mystery of salvation, for this provides the foundation for the belief in the Assumption.

We firmly believe that from the first moment of her conception Mary was free of all sin, including Original Sin, by a special favor of almighty God. The Archangel Gabriel recognized her as "full of grace," "blessed among women" and "one with the Lord." Mary had been chosen to be the Mother of our savior. By the power of the Holy Spirit, she conceived our Lord Jesus Christ, and through her, true God became also man, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

During her lifetime, although the Gospel citations are limited, Mary always presented our Lord to others:
  • to Elizabeth and her son, John the Baptist, who leapt for joy in the womb at the presence of the Lord still in his own mother's womb;
  • to the simple shepherds as well as the wise Magi;
  • and to the people at Cana, when our Lord acquiesced to His mother's wish and performed the first miracle.
Moreover, Mary stood at the foot of the cross with her Son, supporting Him and sharing in His suffering through her love as only a mother could do. Finally, she was with the Apostles at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended and the Church was born. Therefore, each of us can step back and see Mary as the faithful servant of God who shared intimately in the birth, life, death and resurrection of our Lord.

For these reasons we believe that the promises our Lord has given to each of us of sharing eternal life, including a resurrection of the body, were fulfilled in Mary.
Since Mary was free of Original Sin and its effects (one of which is corruption of the body at death), since she shared intimately in the life of the Lord and in His passion, death and resurrection, and since she was present at Pentecost, this model disciple appropriately shared in the bodily resurrection and glorification of the Lord at the end of her life. (Note that the solemn definition does not specify whether Mary physically died before being assumed or just was assumed; it simply states, "Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life...")

The Catechism, also quoting the Byzantine Liturgy, states, "The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: 'In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death'" (No. 966).

The belief in the Assumption of our Blessed Mother has been longstanding in our Church. We must remember that the early Church was preoccupied with resolving questions about Christ, particularly His incarnation and the hypostatic union (His divine and human natures). However, in addressing these questions, the Church gradually defined the titles of Mary as Mother of God and as New Eve, and the belief of the Immaculate Conception, all of which form the basis for the Assumption.

In "Munificentissimus Deus," Pope Pius XII cited various Church Fathers to trace the longstanding tradition of the belief of the Assumption — St. John Damascene, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and St. Gregory of Tours, to name a few. Bishop Theoteknos of Livias (c. 550- 650) delivered one of the most comprehensive early sermons concerning the Assumption:

"For Christ took His immaculate flesh from the immaculate flesh of Mary, and if He had prepared a place in heaven for the Apostles, how much more for His mother; if Enoch had been translated and Elijah had gone to heaven, how much more Mary, who like the moon in the midst of the stars shines forth and excels among the prophets and Apostles? For even though her God-bearing body tasted death, it did not undergo corruption, but was preserved incorrupt and undefiled and taken up into heaven with its pure and spotless soul."​

St. John Damascene (d. 749) also recorded an interesting story concerning the Assumption:
"St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven."

In all, the Patristic Fathers defended the Assumption on two counts:
1) Since Mary was sinless and a perpetual virgin, she could not suffer bodily deterioration, the result of Original Sin, after her death.
2) Also, if Mary bore Christ and played an intimate role as His mother in the redemption of man, then she must likewise share body and soul in His resurrection and glorification.

The Byzantine Emperor Mauritius (582-602) established the celebration of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary on August 15 for the Eastern Church. (Some historians speculate that the celebration was already widespread before the Council of Ephesus in 431). By the end of the 6th century, the West likewise celebrated the Feast of the Assumption. While the Church first emphasized the death of Mary, gradual shifts in both title and content occurred so that by the end of the 8th century, the Gregorian Sacramentary had prayers for Assumption Day.

The Feast of the Assumption gives each of us great hope as we contemplate this one facet of the beautiful woman of faith, our Blessed Mother. Mary moves us by example and prayer to grow in God's grace, to be receptive to His will, to convert our lives through sacrifice and penance, and seek that everlasting union in the heavenly Kingdom.

In 1973, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in their letter "Behold Your Mother," stated, "Christ has risen from the dead, we need no further assurance of our faith. Mary assumed into heaven serves rather as a gracious reminder to the Church that our Lord wishes all whom the Father has given Him to be raised with Him. In Mary taken to glory, to union with Christ, the Church sees herself answering the invitation of the heavenly Bridegroom."
source
So tell me, how many bishops at Niceæ I, would have taught this dogma as necessary to be believed as part of the Christian Faith as you do?


For those who do not know and I doubt this will be forthcoming this is a dogma of Rome, defined in those ancient days of 1950 AD, is something that MUST be believed. So one could deny the bodily Assumption of Mary in 1949 and still not commit a mortal sin but in 1950 it is a mortal sin. Year 1500 not a mortal sin, 1950 mortal sin. Year 800 non at mortal sin, 1950 mortal sin. Year 325 not a mortal sin, 1950 mortal sin.

According to Catechism of the Catholic Church:

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd Ed., United States Catholic Conference, 2000, p. 28.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
11,135
1,618
113
63
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I guess all of the historical facts I gave you were too much to handle . . .

So, tell me, cultist –
WHY haven’t you been able to show me how the 7 Deuterocanonical Books “contraduct the rest of Scripture?

Why do you adhere to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba).
There’s all kinds of good reads these days. Your head must be so full of commentary that you can’t even obey Acts 2:38. What a mess.
 

Truther

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2019
11,135
1,618
113
63
Lodi
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Bible never mentions this “re-Baptism” that YOU and your cult promotes.
It CLEARLY states:

ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all (Eph. 4:5-6).
Paul rebaptized 12 men that were not baptized properly since Acts 2 and the beginning of the church. They were baptized other than in the name of Jesus and had to be baptized in the name of Jesus.
Just like you.
You were baptized other than in the name of Jesus and you need to be baptized in the name of Jesus.
Argue with Paul not me.
 

Fred J

Active Member
Nov 26, 2023
877
205
43
57
W.P.
Faith
Christian
Country
Malaysia
That is an awesome post you just made. May I ask you a question, do you guys in your church celebrate and obey Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation?
Yes, we place our hand on the person's head or shoulder, saying, "In the name of Jesus Christ, i baptize you in the name of the FATHER, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Dunk them completely into the water and raise them up, and also place the hand on them again, saying, "Receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Since is according to as it is written, these must be done in complete faith, believe and confidence, and not in disbelieve.
 

Fred J

Active Member
Nov 26, 2023
877
205
43
57
W.P.
Faith
Christian
Country
Malaysia
If water is not mentioned per baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, then are you guys reading it like this?

Then Peter said unto them repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?
We read, even when water is not mentioned, they were all actually baptized with 'water'. This is because in Acts 10:47, Apostle Peter mentions 'water' to used to baptize people, and can any man forbid.
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,258
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Paul rebaptized 12 men that were not baptized properly since Acts 2 and the beginning of the church. They were baptized other than in the name of Jesus and had to be baptized in the name of Jesus.
Just like you.
You were baptized other than in the name of Jesus and you need to be baptized in the name of Jesus.
Argue with Paul not me.
Paul rebaptized 12 men because they had been baptized in John's baptism. That's what Acts 19:1-7 tells us. I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son (= Jesus Christ) and of the Holy Ghost, precisely as commanded in Matt. 28:19. If you tell me my baptism was ineffective and I need to be rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ alone, we can have that debate all day long -- but you wont be able to cite Acts 19:1-7 in support of your position. John's baptism was ineffective because it was a baptism of repentance only. Neither your baptism nor mine was a baptism of repentance only.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace
J

Johann

Guest
Purposes of paedobaptism:

  1. As a parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament, Luke 2:21.
  2. Initiate the baby into the Christian community because his parent is a Christian, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 7:14.
I baptized all my 5 kids by near submersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when they were 8 days old. I understand that the evidence for infant baptism in the Bible is not explicit and is debatable. So, when my kids were teenagers, I told them that if they believed that was sufficient, there would be no need to be baptized again; but if not, feel free to have an official adult believer's baptism from a reputable local church.
No purpose unless you are a Catholic.
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,258
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No purpose unless you are a Catholic.
Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox, Methodists and Congregationalists, among other Protestant sects, practice infant baptism as well. It has a very long tradition. Chapter 21 of The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, written around 210-215 AD, mentions it:

¹At cockcrow prayer shall be made over the water. ²The stream shall flow through the baptismal tank or pour into it from above when there is no scarcity of water; but if there is a scarcity, whether constant or sudden, then use whatever water you can find.

³They shall remove their clothing. ⁴And first baptize the little ones; if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.
 
J

Johann

Guest
Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox, Methodists and Congregationalists, among other Protestant sects, practice infant baptism as well. It has a very long tradition. Chapter 21 of The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, written around 210-215 AD, mentions it:

¹At cockcrow prayer shall be made over the water. ²The stream shall flow through the baptismal tank or pour into it from above when there is no scarcity of water; but if there is a scarcity, whether constant or sudden, then use whatever water you can find.

³They shall remove their clothing. ⁴And first baptize the little ones; if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.
Not interested in this topic since there is no saving efficacy in water--

And her household (kai ho oikos autēs). Who constituted her “household”? The term oikos, originally means the building as below, “into my house” and then it includes the inmates of a house. There is nothing here to show whether Lydia’s “household” went beyond “the women” employed by her who like her had heard the preaching of Paul and had believed. “Possibly Euodia and Syntyche and the other women, Php_4:2, Php_4:3, may have been included in the family of Lydia, who may have employed many slaves and freed women in her trade” (Knowling). “This statement cannot be claimed as any argument for infant baptism, since the Greek word may mean her servants or her work-people” (Furneaux). In the household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, the jailor, Crispus) one sees “infants” or not according to his predilections or preferences.
RWP

and her household; they were baptized also, being converted at the same time; these seem to be her menial servants, who came along with her from her native place upon business, and who attended on her; accordingly the Ethiopic version renders it, "and she was baptized with all her men"; and these were believers, and are called "the brethren", Act_16:40 hence this passage will by no means serve the cause of infant baptism: whether Lydia was a maid, a wife, or widow, cannot be said; it looks, however, as if she had no husband now, since she is mentioned as a trader herself; and whether she had any children or not, is not certain, nor can it be concluded from this clause, for there are many households that have no children; and if she had young children, it is not likely she should bring them with her to such a distant place, whither she was come upon trade and business: the pleaders for infant baptism must prove that she had children; that these were her household, or part of her household here spoken of; and that they were baptized; or this instance will be of no service to their cause:
Gill

Biblical Mentions of Baptism and the Practice of Infant Baptism
The Bible does not explicitly mention the practice of infant baptism. However, several passages are interpreted by proponents of infant baptism to support the practice indirectly.

Key Biblical Passages
Acts 16:15:

"And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.' So she persuaded us."

Acts 16:33:

"And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized."

1 Corinthians 1:16:

"Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other."

These passages mention the baptism of entire households, which some theologians argue would likely include children and infants. The Greek word "oikos," used for household, generally includes all members of a family, regardless of age.

Colossians 2:11-12:
"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

This passage draws a parallel between circumcision, which was performed on infants as a sign of the covenant, and baptism, suggesting that baptism can also be administered to infants as a sign of the new covenant.

Historical and Theological Support
The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (c. 210-215 AD) is one of the earliest extrabiblical sources that explicitly mentions infant baptism:

"And first baptize the little ones; if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them."

This text indicates that the practice of baptizing infants was established in the early Christian community, reflecting the continuity of the faith community's covenantal theology from Jewish circumcision practices.

Theological Arguments for Infant Baptism
Covenantal Theology: Proponents argue that just as infants were included in the old covenant through circumcision (Genesis 17:12), they should be included in the new covenant through baptism. Baptism is seen as the New Testament counterpart to circumcision, incorporating individuals into the covenant community.

Household Baptisms: The references to household baptisms in Acts suggest that early Christians baptized entire families, likely including children and infants, indicating the communal and inclusive nature of the sacrament.

Original Sin: Many traditions that practice infant baptism (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant denominations) believe that baptism cleanses original sin. Infants, being born with original sin, require baptism to be welcomed into the Christian community and to receive grace.

Conclusion
While the Bible does not explicitly mention infant baptism, the practice is supported by a combination of scriptural interpretations, historical traditions, and theological arguments. The references to household baptisms in Acts, the analogy between circumcision and baptism in Colossians, and early Christian writings such as The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus provide a foundation for the longstanding tradition of infant baptism practiced by many Christian denominations.




 
  • Like
Reactions: Jude Thaddeus

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
So tell me, how many bishops at Niceæ I, would have taught this dogma as necessary to be believed as part of the Christian Faith as you do?
I accept DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. Do you?? No, you arrogantly reject it, allowing you to invent nonsense.
For those who do not know and I doubt this will be forthcoming this is a dogma of Rome, defined in those ancient days of 1950 AD, is something that MUST be believed. So one could deny the bodily Assumption of Mary in 1949 and still not commit a mortal sin but in 1950 it is a mortal sin. Year 1500 not a mortal sin, 1950 mortal sin. Year 800 non at mortal sin, 1950 mortal sin. Year 325 not a mortal sin, 1950 mortal sin.

According to Catechism of the Catholic Church:

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd Ed., United States Catholic Conference, 2000, p. 28.
You play chronology games like an atheist or a fundamentalist. Worse, you toss around "mortal sin" as if you understand what it means, then pretend you have an argument.

Scripture speaks of two types of sin: “sin which is mortal” and “sin which is not mortal” (1 John 5:16-17). The latter of these, the Church calls venial (or pardonable) sin. So what it is that makes a sin mortal (or deadly)?

Three conditions must be met:
(1) it must be a “sin whose object is grave matter,”
(2) it must be committed with “full knowledge,” and
(3) it must be done with “deliberate consent.”

To reject Magisterial teaching on the Assumption, one must have full knowledge of the Immaculate Conception and a host of other dogmatic declarations. If one lacks full knowledge, it is not a mortal sin.
 
Last edited:

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Not interested in this topic since there is no saving efficacy in water--
" no saving efficacy in water" is correct when you separate spirit from water. Jesus never did that.
Good research on the rest of your post.:vgood:
 
Last edited:

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,258
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Historical and Theological Support
The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (c. 210-215 AD) is one of the earliest extrabiblical sources that explicitly mentions infant baptism:

"And first baptize the little ones; if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them."

This text indicates that the practice of baptizing infants was established in the early Christian community, reflecting the continuity of the faith community's covenantal theology from Jewish circumcision practices.
Exactly my point. We quote the same source. I just added more of his quote -- the part about water, which you don't like.