Baptizing Children/Infants

The question was posed in another thread about where we get Biblical support for baptizing children and infants…

Colossians 2:11-12 “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” Paul is making the connection that baptism is the new form of circumcision. Circumcision took place on the 8th day after a child’s birth (see Gen 17:12; Acts 7:8). If Paul did not agree with baptism at such a young age, it is logical that he wouldn’t have made the connection with circumcision.

Acts 2:37-41 [font=‘Times New Roman’]“Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.” There’s no distinction here between adults and children.[/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’][/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’]Acts 16:14-15 [font=‘Times New Roman’]“One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God, listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. After she and her household had been baptized, she offered us an invitation, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my home,” and she prevailed on us.” Again, no distinction of adults and children. In fact, its much more likely that children were in her household than not.[/font][/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’][font=‘Times New Roman’][/font][/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’][font=‘Times New Roman’][font=‘Times New Roman’]Acts 16:32-33 “So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once.” A third with no distinction of only adults being baptized. Why would there be mention of “all his family” if it were only the adults?[/font][/font][/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’][font=‘Times New Roman’][font=‘Times New Roman’][/font][/font][/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’][font=‘Times New Roman’][font=‘Times New Roman’]1 Corinthians 1:14-16 “give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say you were baptized in my name. (I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)” Same as previous explanations.[/font][/font][/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’][font=‘Times New Roman’][/font][/font]

Where is that in the bible…?

Those kind of questions usually send Catholics digging for answers.

The last time I was asked that question, a few months back, I responded " Well, let’s just ask the apostles for the answer"

The LDS gentlemen smirked and I expressed his though for him: “We can’t can we, because they are dead”

I then said “Well let’s ask those whom they taught and see what their understanding was.”

Same smirk, and my same response.

Lastly, I said but we can ask those who learned in the early church just what the Church was teaching from day one… they are called the Fathers of the Church, and they wrote extensively, and they all agreed.
A topic does not have to be in the Bible to be true and to be a Church teaching that is true.

Asking “where is that in the Bible” is a form of straw dog.

[quote=MrS]Where is that in the bible…?

Those kind of questions usually send Catholics digging for answers.

The last time I was asked that question, a few months back, I responded " Well, let’s just ask the apostles for the answer"

The LDS gentlemen smirked and I expressed his though for him: “We can’t can we, because they are dead”

I then said “Well let’s ask those whom they taught and see what their understanding was.”

Same smirk, and my same response.

Lastly, I said but we can ask those who learned in the early church just what the Church was teaching from day one… they are called the Fathers of the Church, and they wrote extensively, and they all agreed.
A topic does not have to be in the Bible to be true and to be a Church teaching that is true.

Asking “where is that in the Bible” is a form of straw dog.
[/quote]

All very true. I think I will use this line of reasoning in the future. However, when someone asks where something is in the Bible, if it’s in there, or at least hinted at, I think we have an obligation to show them where. Definitely like the ECFs as well though.

straw dog?? What’s a straw dog??

Jesus tells us not to hinder babies and children from the Kingdom of God.

NAB MAT 19:14"Let the children come to me and do not hinder them. It is to just such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.

NAB LUK 18:15They even brought babies to be touched by him, When the disciples saw this, they scolded them roundly: but Jesus called for the children, saying: "Let the children come to me. Do not shut them off. The reign of God belongs to just such as these.

A straw dog is cousin to the Gingham dog.

[quote=MrS]Where is that in the bible…?

The LDS gentlemen smirked and I expressed his though for him: “We can’t can we, because they are dead”

.
[/quote]

Next time ask, “Where is that in the Book of Mormon?” See if they can tell you.

[quote=ICXCNIKA]Next time ask, “Where is that in the Book of Mormon?” See if they can tell you.
[/quote]

:smiley: yep

[quote=tkdnick], I think we have an obligation to show them where. Definitely like the ECFs as well though.

straw dog?? What’s a straw dog??
[/quote]

absolutely… I agree

A straw dog is generally a statement given which is false, and thus allows the “debater” to build on that false statement to arrive at a desired conclusion. The " straw dog" here is that the Bible is the only authority, therefore…

[quote=MrS]absolutely… I agree

A straw dog is generally a statement given which is false, and thus allows the “debater” to build on that false statement to arrive at a desired conclusion. The " straw dog" here is that the Bible is the only authority, therefore…
[/quote]

So we have a Straw Man and a Straw Dog…I wonder, is a straw dog a straw man’s best friend??? And does the straw man have a straw wife? :smiley:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.