So will you now believe?
Augustine
“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 to 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]).
There is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism. Christ himself proclaimed the suitability of infants for initiation into the kingdom (Luke 18:15-16), and Peter declared: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:38–39).
The apostolic Church practiced the baptism of whole households, with no exceptions mentioned for small children (Acts 16:16, 33, 1 Cor. 1:16). There is no record anywhere in the Bible of a child of a Christian first having to reach the age of reason and then being baptized.
The Lord explicitly “called infants to him[self]” in Luke 18:15-17:
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciple saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
These were not just children who were being brought to Jesus, the Greek word here is “brephe,” which mean infants. And again, the Jews listening would understand that the parents’s belief and obedience suffices for the child until he is old enough to own his own faith. The parents bringing children to Christ, according to Christ, is equivalent to the children coming to him on their own. Moreover, because babies are icons of what we all should be, i.e., they put up no obstacles to the work of God in their lives, and they can most obviously do absolutely nothing to merit anything from God, they are reminders of “the sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation” as CCC 1250 says.
Household Salvation
From the very beginning whole “households” received baptism. There is no reason to believe infants would not have been included (cf. Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; I Cor. 1:16). For brevity’s sake, I will use just one of the five examples cited in that parenthesis while I’ll encourage all reading this to take a look at the other four examples as well.
When St. Paul led the Philippian jailer to Christ in Acts 16, he said to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31, emphasis added). He does not say that all in his household must first believe. He simply says they will all be saved. How could he say that? St. Paul seems to have understood what St. Peter had already preached back when Paul was still persecuting Christians (in Acts 2:38). The promise of faith and baptism is for the jailer and his children.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/infant-baptism
ADSUM,
Thanks for the copied materials.
Unfortunately, they are false. There is no Biblical record of an infant being baptized that I am aware of in Scripture.
Why????
If it was necessary, or desirable to avoid hell, or whatever, God would have given instructions and commands to do so.
No Apostle taught it.
No Apostle practiced it in recorded Scripture.
No commands are given.
No examples are given.
It is an argument from silence to support a practice that did not exist.
I will take this as confirmation that you have nothing but “it was not forbidden” or “there is no reason to think...”
All bogus.
Now, to the issues.
If you're going to cite the ECFs you have to be prepared to accept all of their statements...not just the ones you like.
Augustine, like the other ECFs was all over the board on the issues near and dear to Roman Catholicism, so let's agree to reject him.
Second, we have to understand that baptism is not what saves you. If it were, the thief on the cross is not saved as he was not baptized. Further, some of your fellow RCs have admitted the actual act of baptism is not needed. The examples I use to illustrate this are a soldier mortally wounded on the battlefield. If he/she places their faith in Christ and are not baptized do they go to Heaven or Hell? Rome has to dance around this with a "baptism of desire" which is not attested to in the NT.
So No. Baptism does not save you. Faith in Christ, and only Christ saves you.
Now to the rest of the post.
The apostolic Church practiced the baptism of whole households, with no exceptions mentioned for small children (Acts 16:16, 33, 1 Cor. 1:16). There is no record anywhere in the Bible of a child of a Christian first having to reach the age of reason and then being baptized.
Whoa now....you've changed from infants, presuming these to be babies, now to small children.
Acts 16:16 should be Acts 16:15.
The Roman Catholic is making a HUGE presumption of the members of the households in the passages noted. In neither of the passages are any children mentioned nor infants.
There is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism. Christ himself proclaimed the suitability of infants for initiation into the kingdom (Luke 18:15-16), and Peter declared: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:38–39).
15And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. 16But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.” Luke 18:15-17 NASB
This is an interesting passage. It does not say the children were saved or healed after He touched them. It is possible they were sick....we don't know. When verses like this are vague in their meaning we have to rely upon the context of the overall passage and possibly the remainder of the NT.
Jesus is addressing a childlike faith to enter into the kingdom. Children are wonderful in that they simply believe what they are told. Their faith is a simple one in their parents...they trust their parents.
We should have such a simple trusting faith in Christ as well.
However, all throughout the NT it is clear one must have the ability to believe in Christ or reject Christ.
The Lord explicitly “called infants to him[self]” in Luke 18:15-17:
No....He said permit the children to come to Me.
When St. Paul led the Philippian jailer to Christ in Acts 16, he said to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31, emphasis added). He does not say that all in his household must first believe. He simply says they will all be saved. How could he say that? St. Paul seems to have understood what St. Peter had already preached back when Paul was still persecuting Christians (in Acts 2:38). The promise of faith and baptism is for the jailer and his children.
The requirement was for all to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. If the jailer were to believe and his household would believe they would be saved.
This is why context is important in understanding the New Testament.
I cannot believe in Christ for the benefit of my family. If that is the case then all of my household, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc will be saved by my faith in Christ by Roman Catholic logic.
That is not attested to in the New Testament.
It proves nothing. It certainly is NOT strong support for infant baptism, but a very weak stretch based on presumption and assumption.
" A monsignor who was a former advisor at the Vatican's US embassy in Washington will face charges of possessing and exchanging child pornography, the Holy See announced on Saturday.In a statement it said that Carlo Alberto Capella was ordered to face trail on Thursday, with the first hearing set for June 22nd.
Capella, who was in office until last year, was recalled from Washington by the Vatican in September.
The US State Department notified the Vatican in August through diplomatic channels of a possible violation of child pornography laws by a member of its diplomatic corps in Washington, the Vatican said at the time.
The United States had made "an official request" for the man's diplomatic immunity to be lifted but the Vatican refused, said a US official on condition of anonymity.
It is the latest case the Catholic Church has faced after repeated criticism for the way it has handled scandals over paedophile priests.
You are practicing deception and dishonesty...
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
His entire house believed...Either the two week old baby believed in Jesus Christ as his Savior, OR, there wasn't anyone there young enough who was incapable of believing...
I’ll ask a third time.....are you a Romam Catholic priest?