From Catholic.com, here are 3 scriptural references to child baptism:

 

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

 

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

 

:lol: I posted those in my first post. :lol:

A fairly prominent American (Catholic) theologian, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, when speaking on the idea of limbo- which was as RM mentioned, a theory- said that Cardinal Sheen did not believe in limbo; rather, those who died before being physically baptized were “baptized through their blood” (martyrs) or “baptized through their desire." As for babies that can did not make to baptism or were aborted are baptized through our desire

 

:confused::confused::confused:On bolded.

I've always believed that baptism is an outward profession of an inward conversion.

 

For that reason, I've never understood the Protestant criticism of Catholic infant baptism. If the Catholic Church wants to sprinkle water on a baby's head (wonderful ceremony by the way), why should a Protestant care? We would simply call that a "christening," which has the same effect of binding that child to the commitment of the church body that we Baptists do when we have a baby dedication at our Mother's Day service every year.

 

From the Protestant viewpoint, that child will still have to grow to understanding and accept Christ after the age of understanding in order to achieve salvation. And since I don't believe that baptism itself is a prerequisite to salvation, it should not matter whether that person gets subsequently baptised or not.

 

My real bone of contention between Protestant and Catholic doctrinal discussion is not the sacrament of baptism but the dogmatic understanding of "age of understanding." The Catholic Church seems to belief in the practice of that en masse following the Rite of First Communion, whereas Protestants believe that understanding may be different for each person. There's really where a thread ought to be started.

 

The bolded would be a good argument on why infant baptism does not mean anything or do you believe that the infant has had an inward conversion.

 

Btw, I like that description of baptism.

 

A baby dedication is on how the family plans to raise the child not on the salvation of the child.

Please provide me ANY scriptural support for the bolded. I hear a lot of people make this statement, but what I find is that it typically is simply their own statement because they think it would be too "unfair" for the reverse to happen.

Romans 2

God's Righteous Judgment

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

 

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

LBBC, don't take this the wrong way, but at this point I have a question:

 

 

Are you seriously in pursuit of understanding the Catholic belief of Baptism, or are you simply trying to convince us that our beliefs are wrong?

From Catholic.com, here are 3 scriptural references to child baptism:

 

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

 

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

 

This is circumstantial at best to support infant baptism. Children, absolutely but you can only guess that infants were involved.

Romans 2

God's Righteous Judgment

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

 

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

How does this scripture apply to what I asked?

How does this scripture apply to what I asked?

 

It covers what you labeled fairness doctrine from a scripture basis.

The bolded would be a good argument on why infant baptism does not mean anything or do you believe that the infant has had an inward conversion.

 

Btw, I like that description of baptism.

 

A baby dedication is on how the family plans to raise the child not on the salvation of the child.

 

No, I don't believe that the infant has had an inner conversion. The conversion is going to have to have taken place later in life.

 

So since you and I agree on that, why do we care if they are being sprinkled as infants?

 

The Catholic infant baptismal ceremony contains a long liturgical list about the family and child's commitment to the church family and vice versa, identical to our baby dedication. With the exception of the water sprinkling, they are the same.

It covers what you labeled fairness doctrine from a scripture basis.

 

I'm sorry, I don't see anything in there that in any way describes what I was talking about.

 

I'll ask my earlier question again: IF a person out there who has not heard about Christ can be saved anyway, what is the use of spreading the Good News throughout the nations. Let them remain ignorant and their salvation is assured!

I'm sorry, I don't see anything in there that in any way describes what I was talking about.

 

I'll ask my earlier question again: IF a person out there who has not heard about Christ can be saved anyway, what is the use of spreading the Good News throughout the nations. Let them remain ignorant and their salvation is assured!

 

You posted this question,

 

Please provide me ANY scriptural support for the bolded. I hear a lot of people make this statement, but what I find is that it typically is simply their own statement because they think it would be too "unfair" for the reverse to happen.

 

I provided scriptural support. I didn't address the other question.

If I ever needed any reminder of why Martin Luther scared the living daylights out of Thomas More, I just got it in this thread. If we get 13 people into a room, they all have 13 thoughts about what baptism means and when it should be given. :lol:

 

I stayed away from this discussion for a long time because they always tend to do more harm than good. In any case, I've never seen anything that suggests the practice of infant baptism is wrong. In fact, of all the countless pieces of Catholic doctrine, I've never understood why this one gets people so up in arms. Just as the Old Covenant was entered into through circumcision of infants, the New Covenant is entered into through baptism.

 

Trampler, in any debate or argument, the burden for proof is on the party advocating change or divergence from the established norm. I see nothing in scripture that expressly forbids our 2,000-year-old practice of baptising infants, so it seems to me that the onus of demonstrating that our practice is incorrect is on those asserting that infant baptism is wrong.

You posted this question,

 

 

 

I provided scriptural support. I didn't address the other question.

 

You provided a scripture, but not scriptural support. :isurrender:

 

Don't you even want to take a crack at the other question?

I'm sorry, I don't see anything in there that in any way describes what I was talking about.

 

I'll ask my earlier question again: IF a person out there who has not heard about Christ can be saved anyway, what is the use of spreading the Good News throughout the nations. Let them remain ignorant and their salvation is assured!

 

How about, so that we can live the abundant life that Paul takes about . . . "so that you can have life and have it more abundantly".

 

As I have said a bunch - we have so narrowed the Good News to deal with only the afterlife that we have essentially forgotten the words of the Lord's prayer " . . thy Kingdom COME, thy will be done, ON EARTH" - that ain't talkin about when we die, that is talking about now. For me having the Faith OF Jesus is about bringing the Kingdom to earth NOW, it is not about fire insurance later.

 

Matthew 25:31ff doesn't talk about baptism or believing anything, it talks about living the abundant life based upon how you treat people. It even says that some who get "selected" to go to heaven didn't even know they were serving Jesus . . "Lord when did we feed you or give you drink or visit you when you were in heaven and Jesus answered . . Surely whatever you have done to the least of these you have done to me."

LBBC, don't take this the wrong way, but at this point I have a question:

 

 

Are you seriously in pursuit of understanding the Catholic belief of Baptism, or are you simply trying to convince us that our beliefs are wrong?

 

Absolutely.

 

Seriously, I understand the nature of Original Sin but have not read an argument based in Scripture that shows infant baptism. I am still waiting for it.

 

Instead I see examples of people choosing baptism or unclear examples. If I am practicing it wrong, I am eager to learn the correct way to do it.