For The Reference Section

[Lil Red]

From Scripture Catholic

I. Born Again in Water Baptism

John 1:33 - when Jesus was baptized, he was baptized in the water and Spirit. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism.

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism.

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus' teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus' baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

Acts 8:36 - Philip recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.

Acts 10:47 - Peter says "can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people..?" The Bible always links water and baptism.

2 Kings 5:14 - Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, and his flesh was restored like that of a child. This foreshadows the regenerative function of baptism.

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord pours out His water and His Spirit. Water and the Spirit are linked to baptism. The Bible never separates them.

Ezek. 36:25-27 - the Lord promises He will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us from sin and give us a new heart and spirit.

II. Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the over 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.

Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic.

John 3:3,5 - unless we are "born again" of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase "born again" is "anothen" which literally means begotten from above. See, for example, John 3:31 where "anothen" is so used. Baptism deals with the matter of salvation, not just symbolism.

Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus?

Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5 - these texts present more examples of people learning of Jesus, and then immediately being baptized. If accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is all one needs to do to be saved, then why does everyone in the early Church immediately seek baptism?

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means s an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin.

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation.

1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism.

Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic.. Christ actually dwells within our soul.

Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

Titus 3:5 - He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit. This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. Regeneration is never symbolic.

Heb. 10:22 - in baptism, our hearts are sprinkled clean as our bodies are washed with pure water. Baptism regenerates us because it sanctifies our souls.

1 Peter 3:21 - baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, is what actually saves us; it is not just symbolic or superficial like a bath. Also, the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body" is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, the Church has always taught that baptism is a normative, not an absolute necessity. There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments.

Luke 23:39-43 - the good thief, although not baptized, shows that there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word "paradise, " He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol" meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - there is also a baptism by blood. Lord says, "I have a baptism to be baptized with" referring to His death. Hence, the Church has always taught that those martyred for the faith may be saved without water baptism (e.g., the Holy Innocents).

Mark 10:38 - Jesus says "are you able...to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?," referring to His death.

1 John 5:6 - Jesus came by water and blood. He was baptized by both water and blood. Martyrs are baptized by blood.

III. Infant Baptism

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."

Luke 18:15 - the people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This proves that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized." This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33.

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Eph. 2:3- we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception.

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith.

Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 6-10 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith.

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith.

Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.

Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.

IV. Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion

Ezek. 36:25 - Ezekiel prophesies that God "will 'sprinkle' clean water on you and you shall be clean." The word for "sprinkle" is "rhaino" which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion).

2 Kings 5:14 - Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for "dipped" is "baptizo." Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that "baptizo" and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim.

Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize ("baptisei") with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, "baptisei" refers to a "pouring" out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus' head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles' heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist's prophecy, the Lord baptized ("baptizo") in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - Jesus also talks about His baptism (from "baptizo") of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not mean immersion.

Mark 7:3 - the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash ("baptizo" ) their hands. This demonstrates that "baptizo" does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).

Mark 7:4 - we see that the Jews washed ("bapto" from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

Luke 11:38 - Jesus had not washed ("ebaptisthe") His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of "baptizo" just means washing up, not immersing.

Acts 2:41 - at Peter's first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.

Acts 8:38 - because the verse says they "went down into the water," many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb ("katabaino") used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel's instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.

Acts 8:39 - because the verse says "they came up out of the water," many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for "coming up out of the water" is "anebesan" which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.

Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled.

Acts 16:33 - the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house, so immersion is not possible.

Acts 2:17,18,33 - the pouring of water is like the "pouring" out of the Holy Spirit. Pouring is also called "infusion" (of grace).

1 Cor. 10:2 - Paul says that the Israelites were baptized ("baptizo") in the cloud and in the sea. But they could not have been immersed because Exodus 14:22 and 15:9 say that they went dry shod. Thus, "baptizo" does not mean immersed in these verses.

Eph. 4:5 - there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one faith. Once a person is validly baptized by water and the Spirit in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the intention of the Church (whether by pouring or immersion), there is no longer a need to rebaptize the person.

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord "pours" water on the thirsty land and "pours" His Spirit upon our descendants.

2 Thess. 2:15 - hold fast to the tradition of the Church, whether oral or written. Since the time of Christ, baptisms have been done by pouring or sprinkling.

[phatcatholic]

thanks red :D

[Lil Red]

From Turris Fortis Catholic Apologetics

On Infant Baptism . . .

by Matthew A. C. Newsome ©2001

The following dialog came from an actual conversation between myself and a Baptist which ensued after the question of the origin of infant baptism was raised on an Internet mailing list for the discussion of Church history. I upheld the historic fact that this practice was around in the very earliest days of the Church, while he argued for the belief that this was an un-Biblical development of the Church at some later date. This was an electronic conversation, and the text is taken largely from my e-mails, composed before or after work, so please be forgiving of any spelling or grammatical errors, which I hope to weed out in a later, more structured version of this.

Q. What is the history of infant baptism? When was its origin?

A. Well, there is a strong case that this practice goes back to the New Testament and that even Jesus himself baptized infants. When he said in John 3 that it is necessary to be born again of water and the Holy Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God, he surely meant to include infants for in Matthew 19:14 he says "the kingdom of heaven is for such." That he meant infants here is clear because the parallel passage in Luke says "they brought to him the also infants, that he might touch them." The Greek words brephe and prosepheron, used in these passages, both refer to babes in arms.

St. Paul tells us in Colossians that baptism is to take the place of circumcision. Since circumcision was applied to infants, so is baptism. In the Bible, it can be assumed that infants were included when whole households were baptized, as in Acts 16:15, "She was baptized and her household," and Acts 16:33, "Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately."

Now of course many fundamentalists will argue against this because their own church has a tradition of only allowing adults to be baptized and there is nothing as clear cut in the Scriptures as to say, "You are to baptize infants as well." But the early church writings show that the practice handed down from the Apostles was of infant baptism. Origen wrote, "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants." When St. Augustine wrote on infant baptism, he said, "This the Church always had, always held."

In the third century, there was a movement to hold off on infant baptisms until the eighth day after birth. St. Cyprian tells us that in 253 the Council of Carthage rejected this practice. They saw no need to delay for 8 days. The Council of Milevis in 416 also said that recently born infants are to be baptized.

There were a few in the early church who were of the opinion that infants should wait until they could speak or take part in the ceremony (3 years old or so) unless there was danger of death. These men, such as St. Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian, were few and far between, and even though this was their opinion, they did not deny the validity of infant baptism. Nor did they say only adults should be baptized as some modern sects do, but rather that a child should merely wait till they were old enough to speak. Church councils always upheld that infants could be baptized at any time, the earlier the better.

I'm not entirely sure when various sects began the practice of only allowing adults to be baptized, but it was after the Reformation. I think the 16th century British Anabaptists were the first organized group who rejected infant baptisms.

When you consider the supernatural and divine effects of the sacrament of baptism, what believing mother would not want her newborn baptized as soon as possible! Why wait for grace!

Q. I was born to a Methodist Mother and Baptist Father. I was Baptized as a Infant in the Methodist Church. When I was seven I accepted Christ as my savior. I was Baptized when I was 10 in the Baptist Church. My second baptism was more meaningful because I could participate and make my own decision.

A. The Catholic teaching would be that your second baptism was unnecessary and superfluous. When we say in the Nicene creed, "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins," we mean it. Any baptism that is done in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is valid, no matter what denomination you are in. Thus when Protestants who are baptized come into the Catholic church, they need not be rebaptized. Likewise, we consider all who are baptized with this formula to be brothers and sisters in Christ, connected through our baptism. A lot of sects who deny the sacramental nature of baptism and see it more as an "affirmation of faith" will have repeat baptisms, as often as the person desires it seems.

Q. Does baptizing a infant really do a child any good? I have stayed faithful to Christ all of my life. Did the Baptism have anything to do with this? Or did growing up with two grandmothers that prayed everyday for me and kept me faithful have more to do with it? I know children who are baptized as infants, go through the Lutheran and Catholic Catechisms, hit High School and are never seen again inside a Church until their Wedding, then show up to baptize their children. Environment and a instilling of a Belief system by Mom and Dad have more to do with Grace than infant Baptism in my opinion.

A. This argument is based on the false assumption that baptism is a "magic formula" that will keep you free from sin and in line with Christ all your life. It won't. Each of us has a decision to either turn to or away from Christ, despite our baptismal vows. Baptism does something very specific, and we need to understand that.

Pope Eugene IV had as good a definition of baptism as any, and this is an accurate reflection of what the Catholic church teaches about baptism. It may not be what your church teaches, but if you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then it is what we believe about your baptism, too.

"Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us. . . .The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.”

So, you ask does baptism do children any good? Absolutely!

Q. Shouldn't the choice of Baptism should be extended to the individual? Infant baptism, if I understand it correctly, automatically makes the child a Christian. Seems to me that you can walk through the Catechism and not really have accepted Christ. Many Lutherans and Catholics don't have a personal walk with Christ.

A. If you think baptism is just an outward way of saying "I believe in Jesus" then all you say makes sense. But this is not what most Christians believe nor is it what the early Church, the Apostles, or Christ taught. Baptism is a Sacrament. God gives his children very special graces through this Sacrament. In confers the forgiveness of all sins, original and personal, and the punishment for those sins. It makes you a new creature, a temple of the Holy Spirit. It justifies the one it is conferred upon, allowing you to live under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Most importantly, it brings you into the body of Christ, makes you one of the People of God. You belong no longer to yourself but to Christ.

This isn't just what I believe, but what the Apostles taught us, what the early church practiced. Why deny a child these graces? Adults and babies, all ages of men and women, all classes, all races, all cultures, should have this sacrament made available to them. For adults, the Church ensures that they believe in Christ and His Church before baptism, and for infants, that their parents, or whoever is raising them, will raise them with these values. But the grace of this sacrament is not denied to anyone because of age.

This is sacrament. It is not something you do to "feel Christian." It isn't something you do to show yourself to be holy so that others might see. It's not a magic potion that will make problems go away. It is the key to salvation through Christ. Once it is given to you, the door is open. But you still have to walk through it.

Q. You quoted Bible verses before. I don't interpret them the same way. In Colossians 2:11-12 it says, "In him also you were Circumcised with a Circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of Flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." Why do you think this circumcision was the same as baptism?

A. This is a description of baptism in Old Testament terms of circumcision, as an entry rite into the community. It's not just my interpretation. That the early church also saw this was apparent because it was the whole reasoning behind the movement to wait 8 days till baptism that occurred in the third century. It was Jewish custom to wait 8 days to circumcise, and since baptism took the place of circumcision, some people thought you should wait 8 days for this sacrament also. But the church found then that there was no need to wait even 8 days. This was in the third century, not the twentieth or twenty-first. They were maintaining the tradition that they had, handed on to them by the Apostles, of infant baptism in Christian families, against the new movement that said you must wait 8 days.

Q. If I have learned one thing from the Bible it is never assume that Christ or the Apostles meant anything other than what they said. Acts 16:15 says nothing about Lydia's family having children in it or that she had children that were baptized.

A. What is a household? I suppose it would be of benefit to look at the word in Greek or Hebrew and see what connotations it had 2000 years ago. I suspect it isn't that much different than now. I don't have children as of yet. If I invite you over, it would be to stay with me and my wife. If we had children, then I would be more likely to say "family" or "household." This isn't the only time entire households were baptized. There are several instances. Don't you think that at least one of the households had small infants? It seems to me that if it was meant that infants below a certain age were meant to be excluded from this sacrament, the text would somewhere say so. That it doesn't mention specifically that infants were or were not baptized would lend itself more to the argument that it was open to all, don't you think?

Q. The Kingdom is for everyone I agree, but Christ does NOT say that we should baptize infants. He blessed the children, Just like a priest does today for a child who hasn't been given First Communion.

A. What Christ said was that no one enters the Kingdom of Heaven unless baptized (see the John scripture, which you yourself applied this way), and Christ, in Matthew 19, says that the Kingdom of Heaven is also for little children. It only follows that little children should be baptized since they are meant to be in heaven and only the baptized enter heaven.

Q. In a fundamental reading of the text if it isn't there then it wasn't important or not meant to be. It does not explicitly say to baptize infants.

A. This is a "fundamentalist" reading of the text. But the text also does not say "don't baptize infants." So why ban it? It's not in scripture. Does it not mean anything that the early church, that gave us the scriptures we have through the church councils, also upheld infant baptism through those councils? Wouldn't it make more sense that if the scriptures really meant to ban infant baptism, then the early church, that believed in infant baptism, would not have canonized those texts as scripture because they went against accepted Christian belief?

Q. If we used that logic, then there wouldn't be much in the New Testament then would there?

A. So you are saying that the very church that formed the Christian Bible and gave it to us in the form we know today and believe in was not following the practices in those Scriptures itself??? Why did they choose those books then? There were more gospels and epistles floating around, trust me. They chose these either because 1) they were infallible, protected by God from teaching error on matters of faith, which this is, or 2) because these books agreed with and supported what the church was teaching. Either you believe in one or both of those, or you believe that the Bible was just an accident of history.

Q. I ask you to read Romans 6:3-4. And explain to me how an infant can have new life when he hasn't had a life to speak of?

A. This verse says that when we are baptized we are united to Christ's death and through that new life. It doesn't say "you must be this old to ride this ride." There is no minimum "prior" life you must have before you can have new life. If there were, what would that age be? 21? 18? 16? 10? 5? 3? One year? One month? One minute? If you get into this argument you get into the very argument of when does life begin. The Catholic answer to this question is at conception.

Q. The Bible says that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in Salvation. Doctrine of Original sin aside, how can a infant confess with his mouth and believe in his heart? I can say that my Children believe this, doesn't make it so. Only you can confess only you can believe an Infant is not capable of confession or belief. Grace cannot be imparted to a soul that knows not what it is doing, there is no salvation attached to Infant baptism.

A. If you truly believe this then you believe that any child that dies before he is old enough to speak the name of Jesus is not saved. Whether baptized or not, he or she is going to hell. Is that what you truly believe is the fate of countless millions of infants who died early deaths?

Q. Baptism is merely a replacement of Circumcision of male infants and the blessing of female infants found in the Jewish Faith. Baptist believe it is a waste of time. The Book of Romans is clear on how one becomes a Christian--confess and believe.

A. This does not jive with the scripture, "Truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." A waste of time? Merely a replacement of circumcision? That's not what the Gospel says. Yes, Romans says you must confess and believe. But you must also be baptized. It's not enough to say the words. Not all who cry "Lord, Lord!" will be saved.

Q. Baptist dedicate their children to Christ when they are infants. We don't believe that infants are in need of baptism as we believe that until the Age of Accountability they will go to be with Christ when they die. Now the Age of Accountability is different for each person. I didn't say it made sense.

A. We believe that when Christ said no one enters the Kingdom of Heaven unless he is reborn in water and the Holy Spirit he intended it for children as well. We hold that you contract original sin at conception, so baptism is of course needed as forgiveness of that sin. This is inherited sin, not an action of the infant.

Q. Baptism strips away the old nature and puts on the new Christ centered life. How can a newborn infant have an old nature to be stripped from it? Being born in Original sin is a myth.

A. If you think Original Sin is a myth, then I really can't help you on this one. I don't know how you can believe that Original Sin is a falsehood if you believe Christ really did what he did. If he died for all of our sins, that includes children below the age of reason, who cannot sin, and according to you, they would have no need of Christ's redemption. Did Christ not die for them?

Q. I never said that children couldn't sin, they too fall short of the glory of God.

A. Sin requires will. You must desire to sin. It requires a moral intelligent creature with free will and reason to turn away from God or perform an act offensive to God. Thus animals cannot sin. Children below the age of reason cannot sin. If children fall short of the glory of God it is because of original sin, which all humans are born with.

Q. So a 3 year old who accidentally shoots a gun and kills someone didn't sin? 3 is generally considered to be below the age of reason.

A. If a 3 year old accidentally shoots off a gun and kills someone, that's not a sin, it's an accident. That three year old had no desire to kill, no desire to break God's law.

Q. But to say that at birth my wife brought a convicted sinner into the world, and I must immediately wash away the sins he is going to commit in his lifetime, is a misinterpretation of Scripture.

A. No, it is a misinterpretation of baptism. Baptism does nothing for the sins you will commit after baptism. It washes away the sins existing before baptism. For children before the age of reason, this would be original sin. You yourself just said that even children fall short of the glory of God. What is this but original sin? Can you at least concede that the early church and the Apostles believed in Original Sin and therefore saw the need of infant baptism?

Q. I will concede that someone came up with the doctrine of Original Sin and applied it to infants. But it is not Biblical.

A. The doctrine comes from Genesis. And Romans 5:12. Read this article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

It's a pretty good history of the doctrine. If you deny this, then of course infant baptism would seem silly. The reason that the church has always practiced infant baptism is because the church has always believed in Original Sin. The reason the Church believes in Original Sin is because it is a true Christian doctrine, and has been from the very beginning of the Church.

Q. So an infant who dies of SIDS in the hospital goes to Hell? By your reckoning if the baby isn't baptized the minute he is born he runs the risk of going to hell until he does. I can't believe that a merciful God would allow that.

A. If we are to believe in the Gospels then we are to believe that when Christ said no one enters heaven unless they are reborn in water and spirit that he meant just that. Therefore anabaptized infants are in danger, yes. We don't like it. We certainly don't condemn them to hell. All we can say is that they are at the mercy of God. You say Baptists believe that anabaptized infants are protected by Christ until the age of reason. Well, we would like to believe that too. It certainly makes us feel better. But we can't prove that from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, so we just don't know.

Catholics do not believe that anabaptized infants are condemned to hell, not right out anyway. In addition to baptism of water, there is also the baptism of desire, that states that one who dies while desiring to be baptized, still receives the sanctifying grace of baptism. Then there is the baptism of blood, which is conferred upon those who are martyred for Christ. Whether or not unborn infants are recipients of the baptism of desire is unclear. Can an infant's heart desire baptism? Since at an infant's baptism it is the parents who take on the baptismal vows for the child, can their desire confer the baptism of desire on their unborn baby? These are very touchy issues that more than likely will not be settled in this world. But the Catholic church understands that baptism of *some sort* is necessary for salvation.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

In other words, we want to believe that there is a place in heaven for anabaptized infants, but we cannot be sure of that. There are signs that would give us hope, but we should not gamble and delay baptism for our children any longer than is necessary.

Q. You can't have three baptisms as the Catholics believe. Christ only taught one baptism. The baptism that makes you a new man.

A. Whoa! Hold your horses here. ;-) Catholics believe in one baptism. It's in the Creed. "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Now we hold that that baptism can be in one of three forms. In addition to the normal means of water, there is baptism of desire (one who is being catechized but dies before the actual baptism will be considered baptized because it was his desire to be baptized), and baptism of blood (a martyr who dies for Christ, though unapprised, is saved because of his martyrdom). But there is only one baptism. You can only be given that initial grace once. It is once and for all, you need no more. It is this act that brings you into God's family. You may fall from grace through sin, but you can then ask for forgiveness and God will grant it. But it is only the grace of baptism that washes away original sin. You only do that once.

In the Baptist church, isn't it common to re-baptize people?

Q. I am praying he accepts unbaptized babies, but many Criminals were baptized as Infants, will Christ accept them?

A. Baptism does not confer a once and for all saving grace. It washes away the stain of original sin and forgives any sins you have committed prior to baptism but says nothing about what you choose to do after baptism. You have free will to *not* follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You have free will to turn away from God and Christ. If these criminals sought Christ's forgiveness and repented for their sins, then Christ will accept them.

Q. You seem to have much faith in Church Fathers. But when Tertullian wrote in "De Anima" on the traducian doctrine of the transmission of the soul from the parents to the child in the reproductive process, he laid great emphasis on the rite of baptism. In his "Of Baptism" he said that post baptismal sins were mortal sins, and opposed infant baptism. (Christianity through the Centuries by Earle E Cairns. p.112-113) Doesn't sound like he validated infant baptism to me.

A. Yes, Tertullian was of the opinion that a child should wait. This was his opinion. The Church taught otherwise and his views were not ever made doctrine. They stood against the Church practice as handed down from the Apostles.

In the early Church, there was a movement among some that encouraged waiting until you were on your death bed to be Baptized. Since the sacrament washes away all sin, original and otherwise, the person who dies immediately after baptism, before he has the chance to sin again, has a "free ticket" to heaven, so to speak. So many waited as long as possible, so they could still enjoy their hedonistic lifestyle. This notion was recognized by many as an improper way to view the sacrament and an abuse of the sacramental graces. It never really caught on.

Q. In the same book p.119-120, " By the end of the second Century..... Infant baptism which Tertullian opposed and Cyprian supported, and clinical baptism, the baptism of the sick, developed in this period." So infant baptism developed in the second century--it is not Apostolic teaching.

A. He is basing his argument that infant baptism developed in the second century because it is then that one finds the first writings about it. The reason one cannot find writings about it earlier was because it was not until then that people began to suggest that infants should not be baptized. That this was against the pre-existing church practice is clear, and that is why Church Councils consistently upheld infant baptism. For infant baptism to be a pre-existing practice in the second century, it would have had to come from the first century, when the Apostles were still around and teaching.

Q. The practice of Infant baptism was developed by the Church Councils. Not Jesus and Not Paul. Jesus blessed the children and called the followers "little children" and we should be childlike in are relationship with the Father.

A. Why do you think that these earliest of Church Councils upheld this practice if it was not given to them by the Apostles? Did they just like seeing wet babies? Did they stand to gain personally from it? No. They were upholding the Apostolic teaching, which is what councils do.

Q. You rely on the Church Fathers for everything. What doesn't stand up to securitization is this notion that the church is blameless for everything. This concept of Church infallibility is just as wrong as those who place all blame at the Church's feet, only from the opposite direction. Neither extreme can be true.

A. Who said the church is blameless? You misunderstand infallibility. Infallibility does NOT mean:

-That the individual church members are always right.

-That individual church members are impeccable (without sin)

-That the church as a whole is impeccable (without sin)

-That the church never does anything wrong.

-That the Pope never does anything wrong.

-The list goes on. There are lots of things infallibility does not mean.

What it DOES mean is that Christ established a church with teaching authority so that when the Church teaches on a matter of faith and morals it is preserved from error. That is it.

Christ promised us that his church should not fail. He promised that his prayers would be with us, and that he would be with us always. We have faith in the Church because we have faith in Christ.

Q. You cannot deny that the early Church Fathers were sometimes wrong.

A. No one says that some of the early Fathers were not wrong. They are not infallible. It is the teaching church that is infallible. This is why you can find church fathers teaching any number of things that were later refuted by the Church, and the ones teaching in error then resigned to the official church teaching. How else would we know what to believe? How to interpret this Scripture passage or that? Every man with an opinion could start his own sect. There would be absolutely no unity, and unity is exactly what Christ wants in his church.

Q. Just because the early church 'Fathers' were closer to an event doesn't mean that they were infallible.

A. You are right. They are not infallible. Neither are we. It is the teaching church that is infallible. But when we are trying to ascertain what the Apostles taught, and we have on one hand the writings of the very people they taught, or the generation after that, and on the other hand writings that are only 20 years old based on a modern man's interpretation of Scriptures, which do you think will be closer to the truth?

Q. The "truth" on this issue is that the Scriptures are either unclear or silent on this issue.

A. The truth is that Scriptures quote Jesus as saying that all are to be baptized to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The truth is that Scriptures quote Jesus as saying that children are meant to go to heaven. The truth is that the Scriptures describe families being baptized together.

What is up for debate is weather or not any of these families included small children.

Q. The "truth" is that even the much-vaunted church 'Fathers' disagreed on this and other issues.

A. The truth is that in the second century and later a *few* of the early Fathers thought it would be better to allow infants to come to the age where they could speak so that they may take a more active role in their own baptism. The truth is that the Church councils decided this would be an unnecessary delay. Note--if the parents wished to hold off on their children's baptism, nothing prevents that. But they are not forced to wait if they do not wish to.

Q. The "truth" is that just because part of the early church participated in infant baptism and eventually became the majority doesn't mean they were right.

A. Well, the truth is that the majority of the early church practiced infant baptism, and a few argued that it would be better to wait until the infants could speak. This minority was shown to be in the wrong by early Church councils. If those church councils were wrong on this issue, could they be wrong on other issues as well? Maybe Christ was not wholly man and wholly God? Maybe the Scriptures are just as fallible as any other work of literature?

Q. Baptism is a change of life it is a step that is taken after Salvation. To take it before Salvation does you no good.

A. Well, here we get into all sorts of differences between Catholics and Baptists where Salvation is concerned. The Baptist belief, if I am stating it correctly, is that once you have accepted Christ as your personal savior, you are saved and that salvation cannot be lost. The Catholic belief can be best stated by St. Paul, in Phil 2:12, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." The Catholic, when asked by the Evangelist knocking at his door, "Have you been saved?" will answer, "I have been saved, I am being saved, and I hope to be saved." We see it as a process. Salvation is given to us by God through his Grace. We must retain it by our own free will.

So for a Catholic, the notion of holding off on Baptism until after Salvation is absurd. We don't *know* we are saved until we come to our judgment. We hope. But we cannot know how we may sin in the days between now and our death. We see Baptism as the first step towards Salvation, where God gives us that initial grace that washes us free from original sin.

Q. Show me indisputable 1st Century evidence that baptizing infants was done and I will stop opposing it.

A. I'm looking for it now. But you know that most Christian converts in the 1st century were adults. You have to allow some time to pass before children are being born into Christian families. Plus it takes some time for things like this to develop. You don't have a lot of things in the first century. The Bible, for instance. But you hold that in pretty high regard. I can prove infant baptism was done in the mid third century and was considered as a traditional teaching handed on by the Apostles at that time. The earliest reference I can find so far is from 215 AD, St. Hippolytus of Rome, saying, "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." This is pretty much how we do things today.

I understand your Baptist position. Really, I do. It is the ultimate logical conclusion of Luther's original doctrine of Salvation by faith alone. Since infants are unable to profess the faith, they cannot receive the grace of baptism. Also, Baptists do not see baptism as a sacrament, but rather as a symbol. I do understand your church's position. I don't want to argue the theological merits of it. I'm just saying it is not a historic one. It is not what the first Christians believed.

So far I have documentation from 215 AD (Hippolytus) saying that children who cannot speak can be baptized with their parents speaking for them. I have Origen in 244 stating that the Church has baptized infants since the time of the Apostles, and I have the council of Carthage in 252 saying it wasn't necessary to wait 8 days to baptize an infant. I'd say that is pretty good so far.

I'm looking for sources from even earlier. It's pretty hard work, you know, looking for these 2000 year old texts. While I'm looking, would you be so kind as to find for me a first century reference to an authoritative church statement that infant baptism is not to be allowed? I'd appreciate it. So far all of the third century sources I could find seem to indicate this was a very old practice. . .

[Lil Red]

From Traditional Catholic Apologetics

Original Sin and Infant Baptism

By Charles the Hammer

The thought of babies dying not and not achieving salvation is a horrible thought, But unfortunately it is nothing more than emotionalism . Emotionalism cannot grant us salvation, it is only the truth of Christ can do this. Some would say "But babies are innocent and cannot sin or be guilty of sin." But what does scripture tell us? The Bible is very specific babies can and are conceived in the state of sin "Who can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed ?..."(Job xiv.4) and "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me." (Ps. l. 7). But where does this sin come from, and how do we know that this sin it is passed on from generation to generation? Scripture explains very clearly that the Sin of Adam (the original sin) is passed down upon "ALL MEN" (this is not a reference to gender or age. St. Paul was referring to ALL mankind babies, women ,the old and of course men)"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon ALL MEN, in whom ALL HAVE SINNED....But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, EVEN OVER THEM ALSO WHO HAVE NOT SINNED AFTER THE SIMILITUDE OF THE TRANSGRESSION OF ADAM, who is a figure of him who was to come. But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one sin, so also is the gift. For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of many offences, unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto ALL MEN to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life..."(Romans v.12, 14-19). St. Paul tells us even those who themselves have not Sinned ARE still guilty of Adam's transgression "EVEN OVER THEM ALSO WHO HAVE NOT SINNED AFTER THE SIMILITUDE OF THE TRANSGRESSION OF ADAM "so we see even babies who are incapable of sinning on their own receive the sin of Adam (by the offence of one, unto ALL MEN to condemnation). We see this the principal of "Original Sin" not just mentioned in Romans but also in 1 Cor. xv.21,22 and in Eph. ii.3 . The basic understanding that baptism removes this sin was understood by the apostles in the early church scripture shows this "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away" Christ himself declared baptism a necessity for salvation.Acts xxii.16 "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."John iii.5 (NOTE: The expression "a man" or "tis" in Greek means any one at all. Hence this text applies to both babes and adults.) only through baptism can this sin the removed. The Bible also is very explicit in the fact that NO defiled ( unclean or sinfull) person will enter heaven."There shall not enter (Heaven) into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb."(Apoc. xxi.27) As the New Testament initiation ritual, baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision or "the circumcision of Christ," as Paul states: "In him you were also circumcised . . . with the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:11-12). Thus like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults.The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6,6:15), these are basic Scriptural facts that have always been taught by the church even the early Christians clearly understood that it necessary and proper to baptize babies.

Irenaeus of Lyons

"`And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan' [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: `Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Irenaeus of Lyons

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

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

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"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]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

Ambrose of Milan

"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant." (Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianz

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit.Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"`Well enough,' some will say, `for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?' Certainly [i respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ's] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ's] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ's Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

"Unless we voluntarily depart from the rule of the Christian faith, it must be admitted that inasmuch as infants are, by the sacrament of baptism, conformed to the death of Christ, they are also freed from the serpent's venomous bite" (ibid., 2:27:43).

Council of Carthage V

"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [children whom had been found abandoned] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [Northwest African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II

"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, 'Through one man sin entered into the world (and sin through death), and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned' [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

The African Code

"Concerning the Donatists it seemed good that we should hold counsel with our brethren . . . concerning those infants alone who are baptized by Donatists, lest what they did not do of their own will, when they should be converted to the Church of God with a salutary determination, the error of their parents might prevent their promotion to the ministry of the holy altar" (canon 47[51] [A.D. 419]).

Christ himself reconfirmeds this basic Scriptural Christian belief. Baptism is necessary for salvation, "MAN" (The Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language defines the term "man" as "a human being or a member of the human species" this includes babies and infants)must be baptized to enter the kingdom of God"Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John. iii.5 ,NOTE: The expression "a man" or "tis" in Greek means any one at all. Hence this text applies to both babes and adults.) . Again we see that to the early church baptism (and the necessity of it)was a important belief, and that ALL MEN needed to receive it.Christ again show the importance of baptism when he commanded the apostles to baptize everyone "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"(Matt. xxviii.19 NOTE: The Didache [A.D. 70]"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days". {Didache 7:1}) St. Peter also emphasized the importance is declaring it is through baptism we're saved "Baptism . . . now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21).

Tatian the Syrian

"Then said Jesus unto them, I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world" (The Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian

"When we are about to enter the water--no, just a little before--in the church and under the hand of the bishop, we solemnly profess that we renounce the devil and his pomps and his angels. Thereupon we are immersed three times" (The Crown 3:2 [A.D. 211]).

"After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father; and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names" (Against Praxeas 26 [A.D. 216]).

Hippolytus

"When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: `Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?' And he that is being baptized shall say: `I believe.' Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: `Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?' And when he says: `I believe,' he is baptized again. Again shall he say: `Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?' The one being baptized then says: `I believe.' And so he is baptized a third time" (The Apostolic Tradition 21 [ A.D. 215]).

Origen

"Why, when the Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, does this apostle employ the name of Christ alone in baptism, saying, `We who have been baptized into Christ'; for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity" (Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248]).

The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena

"Then Probus . . . leapt into the water, saying, Jesus Christ, son of God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this water. And Paul said, We baptize thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost. After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ" (Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena 21 [A.D. 250]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can follow--when Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?" (Letters 73:18 [A.D. 253]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"We believe . . . each of these to be and to exist: the Father, truly Father, and the Son, truly Son, and the Holy Ghost, truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, "Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ." Concerning Whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy" (Letter to the People of His Diocese 3 [A.D. 323]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"You were led by the hand to the holy pool of divine baptism, as Christ was carried from the cross to this Sepulcher here before us [the Tomb of Jesus at Jerusalem]. And each of you was asked if he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And you confessed that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and again ascended, and in this there was suggested by a symbol the three days of Christ's burial" (Catechetical Lectures 20:4 [A.D. 350]).

Athanasius

"And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, 'Go ye and baptize all the nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' (Matt. 28:19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity (On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia 2:28 [A.D. 361]).

Basil the Great

"The Holy Spirit, too, is numbered with the Father and the Son, because He is above creation, and is ranked as we are taught by the words of the Lord in the Gospel, "Go and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." He who, on the contrary, places the Spirit before the Son, or alleges Him to be older than the Father, resists the ordinance of God, and is a stranger to the sound faith, since he fails to preserve the form of doxology which he has received, but adopts some new fangled device in order to be pleasing to men" (Letters 52:4 [A.D. 367]).

Basil the Great

"Faith and baptism are two kindred and inseparable ways of salvation: faith is perfected through baptism, baptism is established through faith, and both are completed by the same names. For as we believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, so are we also baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; first comes the confession, introducing us to salvation, and baptism follows, setting the seal upon our assent" (The Holy Spirit 12[28] [A.D. 375]).

Ambrose of Milan

"Moreover, Christ Himself says: "I and the Father are One." "One," said He, that there be no separation of power and nature; but again, "We are," that you may recognize Father and Son, forasmuch as the perfect Father is believed to have begotten the perfect Son, and the Father and the Son are One, not by confusion of Person, but by unity of nature. We say, then, that there is one God, not two or three Gods" (The Faith 1:1[9-10] [A.D. 379]).

Gregory Nazianz

"But not yet perhaps is there formed upon your soul any writing good or bad; and you want to be written upon today . . . I will baptize you and make you a disciple in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; and These Three have One common name, the Godhead. And you shall know, both by appearances and by words that you reject all ungodliness, and are united to all the Godhead" (Orations 40:45 [A.D. 380]).

Jerome

"eeing that a man, baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, becomes a temple of the Lord, and that while the old abode is destroyed a new shrine is built for the Trinity, how can you say that sins can be remitted among the Arians without the coming of the Holy Ghost? How is a soul purged from its former stains which has not the Holy Ghost?" (Dialogue Against the Luciferians 6 [A.D. 382]).

Gregory of Nyssa

"And we, in receiving Baptism, . . . conceal ourselves in [the water] as the Savior did in the earth: and by doing this thrice we represent for ourselves that grace of the Resurrection which was wrought in three days. And this we do, not receiving the sacrament in silence, but while there are spoken over us the Names of the Three Sacred Persons on Whom we believed, in Whom we also hope, from Whom comes to us both the fact of our present and the fact of our future existence" (Sermon For the Day of Lights [A.D. 383]).

Augustine 

"Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost has Christ for its authority, not any man, whoever he may be; and Christ is the truth, not any man" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24[57] [A.D. 400]).

"O Lord our God, we believe in you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Truth would not say, Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless Thou were a Trinity" (The Trinity 15:28[51] [A.D. 408]).

"In this manner then the three things by which they are signified came out from the Body: of the Lord: like as from the Body of the Lord sounded forth the command to "baptize the nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." "In the name:" not, In the names: for "these Three are One," and One God is these Three. And if in any other way this depth of mystery which we read in John's letter can be expounded and understood agreeably with the Catholic faith, which neither confounds nor divides the Trinity, neither believes the substances diverse nor denies that the persons are three, it is on no account to be rejected" (Against Maximin 2:22:3 [A.D. 412]).

Theodoret of Cyr

"And what need is there of many words, when it is possible to refute falsehood in few? We provide that those who year by year come up for holy baptism should carefully learn the faith set forth at Nicaea by the holy and blessed Fathers; and initiating them as we have been bidden, we baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, pronouncing each name singly" (Letters 145 [A.D. 444]).

Conclusion: clearly baptism is necessary for ALL mankind including babies and unborn babies, for the Bible is for a specific that we are conceived in sin and that the sinfull can NOT enter the kingdom of heaven. This was (as shown above) a basic belief of the early Christians who received their teachings directly from the apostles. The Bible also commands us to receive baptism, and those who do not (including unborn babies) SHALL NOT enter the kingdom of God. To deny these basic Scriptural facts it is to deny scripture itself, The denial of scripture is the denial of God !!!

[Lil Red]

thanks red :D

no problem. i haven't helped you out in awhile, so i thought i would do better and start helping again!

[Laudate_Dominum]

Dave Armstrong's site impresses me greatly. http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM

He pretty much covers all the main categories. His site is partly articles and debates of his but mostly links to outside resources. It's pretty fly indeed.

Something like that would be sweet, but more distilled and obviously the page layout and navigation could be radically improved.

[phatcatholic]

Dave Armstrong's site impresses me greatly. http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM

He pretty much covers all the main categories. His site is partly articles and debates of his but mostly links to outside resources. It's pretty fly indeed.

Something like that would be sweet, but more distilled and obviously the page layout and navigation could be radically improved.

that's what i'm trying to do here w/ the reference section. ours is more "distilled" in that the articles are grouped by argument, so its easier to find what ur looking for. also, most of dave's articles, and especially his debates, are quite laborious to read, so i've kinda weeded out alot of that and only included in our site what is the most helpful.

when u said that the page layout and navigation needed radical improvement, were u speaking of our site or his?

if u have any suggestions on how to make our refernce section better, just let me know.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

From Turris Fortis Catholic Apologetics

cool, i didn't have this link either!

[VeraMaria]

never mind :D

[VeraMaria]

never mind :D

[phatcatholic]

never mind :D

?? :huh: