baptise infants?

Question

can someone tell me where in the bible it say do not baptise infants. i have ready many passages that have siad they baptised house holds, it does not say only after an age. the relationship between baptisem circumcision is like this. If a man wanted to be come a jew, he had to believe in the od of israel and be circumcised, if one wants to become christian believe in good and jesus and be baptized. in the old testament , those born into jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the jewish faith they would be raised in and If children in believing homes are being caught to pray to God as
?Father? and to trust in the love of Jesus, who is present with them, then they are in fact being treated as believers from the start, and should then be baptised from the start. To treat them in other respects as believers (even in a tentative way) and yet not to baptise them is to fly in the face of the New Testament use of baptism. i am a catholic i read the bible everyday

many of my non-catholic friends phrase me for my faith, thinking that i am less of a christian then them because i am cathloic, but i have changed many minds, many of them before even knowing me think i am going to hell, untill they realize the faith i do have god bless

Answer 1

Just like many passages, the Bible doesn’t say either way, to do or not. But you brought up a good point yourself. Shouldn’t that person chose to get baptized and not forced. In that’s the case wait tell they can make rational choices which is usual around 8 years old.

Answer 2

Notice the context of many of the "households" that were baptized and you will see they did not include infants.

Acts 18:8, the household of Crispus. The Bible says Crispus and all of his house believed and were baptized. Infants are not capable of believing.

The Jailer in Acts 16 was baptized with all of his house also, but the scriptures are clear that he and all his house believed. (Verses 31-34)

Cornelius was a man that feared God with all his house. (Acts 10:2)

Some other examples of households that were baptized do not indicate the age of those baptized, but it can be concluded that these verses would not contradict other verses in the Bible.

Today, there is "one baptism" (Eph 4:4-5). If we can determine the one baptism for one example, it should apply to every other example after the resurrection of Christ.

First the eunuch in Acts 8 asked what hindered him from being baptized. The answerer was that he could if he believed. (Acts 8:36-38) In this instance belief was necessary before baptism.

This corresponds to the words of Jesus in Mark 16:16 where he said "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved". Here Jesus also puts belief before baptism.

In Acts 2, Peter put repentance before baptism (verse 38). It is obvious that these people believed by this point, so belief and repentance come before baptism. This is something an infant is not able to do.

Yes some examples of households do not specify if any infants were present, but it can be concluded that these do not contradict other passages.

To say that ANY of the households that were baptized included infants is a pure assumption, and not backed up by any additional evidence. This assumption is contrary to the examples shown above, which even include examples of households that believed before they were baptized.

Are you going to risk your soul on a mere assumption? Are you going to risk being in obedience to Christ because you ASSUME that a FEW verses MIGHT show a baptism other than the "one" shown in all of the other examples in the New Testament?

Jesus said: Belief + Baptism = Saved (Mark 16:16)

Will you obey him or not? Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Hebrews 5:9)

Answer 3

To say that someone absolutely must have a certain amount of faith in order to be baptised does not make sense. To limit baptism on an individual's level of understanding implies that a person must be intelligent enough to be baptised. What would that imply for people who are mentally disabled? Why should they not be baptised then? So, it seems to me that infant baptism does make sense. I have faith that there is an indescribable aspect to the mystery of the sacrament of baptism; however, I also believe that there are many ways one can become baptised. Who really knows what's happening when a baptism occurs? It could be something beyond anything we can comprehend.

Answer 4

The early church did baptize infants. The trouble with christians these days is they're so ignorant of what the first christians believed and practiced. We have to remember that the Bible came from this same community of christians. They lived everything in the Bible and more so its foolish to think that just because the Bible does not explicitly record infant baptism we should not baptize babies. Not everything that the early christians practised were recorded in the Bible. Here are some excerpts from the works of the early Church Fathers who lived during the time when there was yet no Bible, only the Church.

Hippolytus
"Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth.In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Answer 5

Many Protestants deny truthfully revealed doctrines just because the Catholic church teaches them.

Those who ignore the reality of original sin also feel comfortable denying the critical necessity of baptism, yet it was the nature of original sin that made it necessary for Christ to become a man to redeem us.

Those who incorrectly claim that Christ paid the full price for all our sins, logically assume that baptism is no longer necessary, because the price Jesus paid covered original sin, as well.

If Christ truly paid the full price for our sins, the world would be notably different than it is today:

1) People would no longer die, as the penalty for sin is death, and Christ already paid the penalty for us.

2) Baptism at any age would be completely unnecessary, as Jesus already paid the full price for our sins, including the sin of faithlessness.

3) God could no longer send anyone to hell, as Jesus would have already paid for all their sins.

4) Jesus would be confined eternally to hell, as the penalty for many sins is eternal damnation.

Those who understand the same truths the apostles understood, know that all humans (except for the Blessed Virgin Mary and Jesus) are born "stained" with original sin, and that the consequences of original sin may be serious enough to keep a soul out of heaven.

Because of this uncertainty the only prudent course of action is to baptize an infant as soon as possible, after birth.

This effectively washes away original sin, makes the infant an adopted member of God's family, a co-heir with Jesus Christ, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Any related faith issues can be taken up later, when the child is truly ready to personally accept Jesus Christ.

All Catholics typically make a profession of faith annually, at Easter time. Catholic children accept Jesus Christ in the Eucharist at around the age of 7 or 8. At the age of 12 or 13, through the sacrament of Confirmation, they voluntarily make the profession of faith that was made for them as an infant, their very own.

In the end, assuming the best case scenario, this works out just about the same as it does for Protestants, except baptized or Catholic infants who die prior to the age of reason are, without doubt, conducted straight to heaven.

For the unbaptized, the aborted, or other true unfortunates, all we can do is trust in the goodness and mercy of the Lord.

It makes no sense to take such chances with souls that are so dear to us, when baptism is so simple, and so effective.

Say the words, pour the water. And do it as quickly as possible.

Better safe, than sorry.

Answer 6

It is not that it says not to baptise infants but it says to baptise believers and a baby can not believe as it can't even talk. It doesn't say not to baptise racoons either..
You are inventing doctrine in what you wrote. With that idea I could baptise people on the street as they might become Christians some day..
Don't add or take away from God's word..

Answer 7

fred
"You don't baptize infants?" "No." We dedicate them like the Scripture says to dedicate them. And we believe in this being a doctrine of the Bible. And trying to follow the Scripture and the pattern that the Lord Jesus left us just as close as we know how, is to follow through the way He did it. And we don't find any place in the Bible where He baptized them or even commissioned them to be baptized. He just said, "They brought little children unto Him that He might bless them." And He laid His hands upon them and said, 'Suffer little children to come unto Me and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God.'" Now before I get too far along I want to mention that these early bishops thought that they were above the Word. They told people they could forgive their sins upon confession of those sins. That never was the truth. They began to baptize infants in the second century. They actually practiced regenerational baptism. No wonder people are mixed up today. If they were so mixed up then, so close to Pentecost, now they are in a most desperate condition, being about 2000 years away from original truth. Oh, Church of God, there is only one hope. Get back to the Word and stay with it.

Answer 8

"Jesus wasn't baptized by John until he was in his 30s." Worst. Argument. Ever. Do you suppose baby Jesus should have told his parents to Baptize him before he even talked? You have an incorrect idea of what Baptism is and what the Bible is. First off, Baptism is to remove the stain of Original Sin, to initiate us into the Body of Christ. There is no reason to wait to give your child this grace and, in fact, it could even be perilous to deprive him of it. Paul also makes it painfully clear that Baptism is the new circumcision in 2 col, did the Jews wait until their children were adults to circumcise them? No. There is no reason to believe that you must wait until adulthood. Also, the Catholic Church *compiled* the Bible. She knows it the best. She also compiled it knowing that it would not at all be the end-all source of Christianity. After all, Christianity flourished for three hundred years without the Bible. Though it is definitely important, it is not the absolute source, the Church is. Jesus founded the Church, he did not write the Bible. "because Catholicism just doesn't seem to match with my values and how I interrupt my beliefs." Match your values? You should be looking for the Truth, not trying to make God fit within your beliefs. “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Matt 19

Answer 9

It doesnt say NOT to, just that Baptism if for believers as a symbol of the cleansing of sin and recognition of the death burrial and resurrection of Christ. It is not sinful to have your baby baptized, but it is for no Biblical reason. They have no idea what it means so its just for vanity's sake that it's done. What's sad though is often when people do this, they child grows up thinking it isnt nessisary to be baptized as a believer in recognition of what it means.

No Catholic Church gives an infant communion, because they dont understand it, so they shouldnt Baptize them either until they understand it.

Answer 10

it dosn't say not to baptize infants.
It commands that *after* a person comes to faith in Christ that they be baptised. This is because baptim is meant as a public declaration of newfound faith, and since a child hasn't made this decision, Christianity doesn't believe in child baptism.
BTW the original latin word for baptism was baptiso which means to "emerse" or submerge.