And just to answer my $.02...
Here, the Catechism admits that this doctrine is not based upon Scripture. It is a man-made tradition. Paul's warning might fit well here:
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8
1) I have already demonstrated in your topic "Why Follow the Bible?" that Paul defends Sacred Tradition. You have not yet refuted any point I raised.
2) Requiring that every Christian practice be based solely upon Scripture is a man-made tradition. Once more, in your topic "Why Follow the bible?" you have failed to demonstrate otherwise.
"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." Acts 18:8
I see you chose this example because the passage implies that everyone in Crispus' household "believed on the Lord." That is one way of interpreting this passage, but this sort of thing is not specified in other biblical accounts of households getting baptized.
So what about these other accounts of household baptisms in the new Testament (which you did not bring up)?
1) Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). Why should we assume that there were no children in her household? When examined in the original Greek, the word for household ("oikos" and its variations) referred to the entire family dwelling in a house along with any slaves or servants. The term is meant to be all encompassing, and this is how it was used throughout the Old Testament. For example, every year Elkanah traveled “with his whole household” to Shiloh to make sacrifice (1Sam 1:21); it is mentioned, as an exception, that Hannah with her as yet unweaned baby stays behind (v. 22).
If infants were to be excluded from baptism then the New Testament writers would specifically state this to avoid confusion on behalf of the reader. After all, the understanding of "household" among people of the 1st Century was already conditioned by the Old Testament usage. Luke, for example, would have specifically noted that infants were excluded in the same way that the exception was specifically noted in 1Sam 1:21-22.
2) Paul and Silas converted a Philippian jailer and he was baptized that night along with his household. "The same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). Once again, why should we assume that that "all of his family" excluded children? 1st Century readers would have assumed that it did.
3) In his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16). Once again, why should we assume that "the household of Stephanas" did not include children? 1st Century readers would have assumed that it did.
Obviously, newborn infants can not repent, believe or confess their sins. Therefore, they are never qualified to be scripturally baptized.
An infant has no personal sin to confess. As they are incapable of properly discerning right from wrong, it is impossible for an infant to be guilty of personal sin. An infant has Original Sin through inheritance, but this is not personal sin, and it does not have to be confessed in order for baptism to cleanse it.
If God's Word is so explicit that only those old enough to hear and receive God's Word should be baptized, then why does Catholicism demand that newborn infants be baptized? Is it to bring people into bondage to the church from shortly after their birth? You must settle this question in your own heart.
In the past, I have questioned your usage of the word "explicit" and I do so again. Exactly where in the bible does it "explicitly" state that
only adults are to be baptized?
When you were baptized as an infant, were you really baptized, or did you just have some water sprinkled on you? It all depends on which side you will believe in - the Word of God or the traditions of men. Please keep in mind the words Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of His day:
"Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:9
But fortunately, unlike the religious leaders Jesus was speaking about, Catholic religious leaders have been embued with Christ's own authority. The Church says that infant baptism is permissable, so God has spoken through the Church on this matter. That is the Catholic position and you have yet to refute any of the points we posted defending the authority of the pope and papal infallibility.
Furthermore, baptism is a sign that a person has entered into the New Covenant provided by God, and is considered the "new circumcision." Circumcision was the way that people entered into the Old Covenant provided by God. All Jewish male infants were required, as commanded by God Himself, to be circumcized at the age of eight days old (Gen 17:12 ff.). If it is ok for Jews to circumcize their babies then why is it not ok for Christians to baptize their babies?
Consider what Catholic Answers has to say on this matter:
Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.(from
http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp)Human beings exist in community and we are responsible for one another. In both circumcision and baptism, God empowers people to claim their children for God. Our children are not lone individuals who should be left to grow up and discover spiritual matters all on their own. Parents are empowered (and responsible) to make decisions for their children in all other areas of life, so why should spiritual matters be any different?
And if you are speaking against religious leaders who support infant baptism then you are also speaking against John Calvin, one of the Fathers of the Protestant Reformation. He gave what is perhaps one of the best defenses of infant bpatism there is. See for yourself:
http://www.geocities.com/the_theologian/co...vinbaptism.htmlAnd now I have a question for you. You claim that the only people who may be baptized are those who hear and receive God's word. An adult may have a mental handicap (since birth) that prevents him from properly hearing and receiving (i.e., understanding) anything. So what happens to him? Is he forever banned from baptism?
"Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:9
How about going back to your topic "Why Follow the Bible?" and refute my posts concerning Sacred Tradition? Until you do that, your posts that accuse Catholics of improperly following tradition lack credibility.
Furthermore, you keep demanding that Catholic Sacred Tradition follow Scripture, but you have yet to demonstrate why any Christian practice must follow Scripture alone. Here again, I invite you back to your topic "Why Follow the Bible?" to finish the discussion.
God bless,
-Rev. Eric
The Glorify God Community
Author
