there are five references in the New Testament to the Baptism of entire households. Peter baptized the household of Cornelius (Acts 11: 14). In Philippi, Paul baptized the household of Lydia and the household of the jailer (Acts 16: 15, 33). He also baptized the household of Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks of baptizing the household of Stephanas (1: 16). The Greek word for household is oikon and refers to all the inhabitants of the house including slaves, servants, infants and children. Can anyone seriously suggest that within the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Jailer, Crispus and Stephanas there were no children or infants present?

@plappville,

So if you don't know those in the households that were baptized in the Bible(and there are quite a number of households), why don't you keep quiet about it.

What if there were infants there and you're now here ranting against 'infant baptism', wouldn't you be committing a big sin against the Catholic Church?

plappville:

How could i ve answered all the verses, i read the verses and discovered there was none that stated, Infants or children were baptised. So i gave u my reply in respect of what the verses qoute. by backing my with proves.

I didn't want to answer becos i felt it was not important, as u re repeating, see my respond.
I was not born catholic, so i didn't baptise there, I became catholic through one of our tenant who's househood were catholics. Although, my dad was a COGM member, we do go to church only sundays.

Joining catholic was really because of the house to house fellowship practise, i felt it was good becos, it helps to remind me of Gods word during the week. But at this point, i discover alot of things like, in some family living, they build alter with MARY's image etc. Ididn't ve borther to kow if it was biblica then, maybe becos, i dont even read the bible. when i recieved the gospel through an evangelical preacher, i converted in and gave my life to Christ.

There you are! You said you were formerly a Catholic but were never baptized in the Catholic church. That's the line (or lie) you anti-Catholics always use to deceive innocent people so that they'll think you know what you are saying.

Sweetheart, you don't know 'jack' about the Catholic Church. You might have been present in Church or fellowship, but it doesn't mean you know a thing about it. Because you are so ignorant that you don't even know that it is through baptism that you become a Catholic. There's nothing like "I was a Catholic but I wasn't baptized there".

So if you don't know even this little thing, what can you possibly know about the Church and its doctrines. You should rather be READING and LEARNING from posts, than POSTING and TEACHING what you know nothing about.

Why don't we leave those who want to BAPTIZE their infants if we don't believe in it, we love STRESSING OUR DIFFERENCES rather than PROMOTING our SIMILARITIES. If it is not WHITE GARMENTS vs RED GARMENTS CHURCH today, it will be PROTESTANTS vs PENTECOSTAL or LATTER RAIN members vs REDEEMERS,

We have turn everything to bitter politics. Our posture has consistently be that "AM RIGHT" and every other person is "WRONG". Instead for us to work on what bring us together, we derive pleasure in magnifying our differences.

Please, lets have peace,

We very much love peace. That's why you hardly find us criticizing anyone. But these people are always on our necks.

Just last month the Pope invited representatives from all the world's leading religions to discuss on how to enhance world peace since it is always said that religion is a major cause of violence in the world.

Is this not a good example of amplifying our common goal and good and putting aside our differences?

Is this a good or bad thing?

Just ask our anti-Catholic brothers and sisters.

After reading a few lines on this topic i couldn't help laffing, Christians are the most disfuntionate set of individuals i've ever met, is it all a power play for us? Do we consider that we proclaim the same faith or is everything an avenue for people to show us just how intelligently stupid they are.

It is only in the christian faith that there are so many divisions cos we all take our ego trips to church and only see the ways in line with what we feel at any point in time, be it good or bad. How many moslems come out to critise the way and manner they practise their faith and yet i ask are we christians smarter than them.

It is only in christiandom that we insult the person of christ, his pictures are descreted, his life is twisted and turned to suit our every whimps, make una try am with islam make we see wetin them go do una, and it's simply because the reverence their own, but we christians what do we do? run our mouth and quote bible verses that suits what we're trying to portray, one thing though for people who quote and misquote, every portion of the bible has a storyline or as we call it in the movie and literal world "a plot". Stop giving me short verses without the whole story that explains what that verse implies.

A word they say is enough for the wise , CHRISTIANS LETS BE UNITED. Since the days we started seeing the lights in our individual petite lives that's when the world started going from bad to worst. Wake up people, our problem is not the bible or the life of Christ but how the twist things to suit our selfish need.
All these talk for baptism, if you no won baptise siddon for your house no be by force, Afterall it's a free world.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Matt 28:17 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Men based there beliefs on human thinking and ideology and tend to shy away from the biblical interpretation of the concised truth and intent of the bible. The bible is not so foolish that he couldn't have made mention in plain language of thngs that has to do with some particular set of people for someone to think for it.

Baptism was done ever in the bible by John the Baptisteven before Jesus came to show the meaning of it, because John was a fore runner and the one that will prepare the coming of christ. And he only baptise by immersion those that believed only in the message of the Kingdom of God.
So can the Bible be that foolish to keep silence on infants for someone to feel he is the owner and custodian of the bible and to think for the bible.
Someone can lay claim to the bible but no one can lay claim to the WORD of GOD because the word of God is made for all man to read. so no one is a custodian and the Originator of the bible.
The issue of sprinkly by water is an heretical (heresy) teaching and against the doctrine of the WORD of God. So if someone says something that no root in the word of God cant the people read and ask for God to interprete? Must people read and interprete the word of God for you always/ That is the problem in Christaindom where we have lots of doctrines and teaching not founded in the WORD of God and people accepts hook and sink because they are lazy to read, and when it comes to the issue of alcohol they can qoute all the verses in the bible to support their habits. But are they truely working in the ways of God, teaching, admonishing and living a rigtheous life?

Rational reasoning 101;

If Jesus as an adult wasn't baptised from age 18-29 years from his cousin John who he could have met at anytime (what was stopping him as he knew the significance since age 12), then anybody who does not baptise at exactly the same age (years , month, days ) is in the same predicament as infants who are baptised.

Rational objections;

Ah, but John also baptised other people who am sure were not exactly Jesus' age. . . .
Which brings me back to 3 questions;

1. So why can't it be possible that John also baptised infants and agric children (10 year olds and less but taller than your father)
2. Why did Jesus have to wait that long ? ( For those arguing on baptism based on faith. . . . fill in the gap)
3. So for all those pages saying household it means only adults.

I tire for people oh, i begin dey wonder the logic by OP to the conclusion say na sin. . . please walk me through how you came about this?

@OP
1) is there any verse/place in the bible where a marriage took place in the church/synagogue??
2) Who was ever called a pastor/rev/bishop in the bible

Dozzy 3:

Rational reasoning 101;

If Jesus as an adult wasn't baptised from age 18-29 years from his cousin John who he could have met at anytime (what was stopping him as he knew the significance since age 12), then anybody who does not baptise at exactly the same age (years , month, days ) is in the same predicament as infants who are baptised.

Rational objections;

Ah, but John also baptised other people who am sure were not exactly Jesus' age. . . .
Which brings me back to 3 questions;

1. So why can't it be possible that John also baptised infants and agric children (10 year olds and less but taller than your father)
2. Why did Jesus have to wait that long ? ( For those arguing on baptism based on faith. . . . fill in the gap)
3. So for all those pages saying household it means only adults.

I tire for people oh, i begin dey wonder the logic by OP to the conclusion say na sin. . . please walk me through how you came about this?

following your logical line of thinking, was there any instance where baptism by sprinkling of water   was done in the bible?
even if a baby will be baptised, the bible baptism clearly shows it has to be by full immersion in water

Jesus not getting baptised until he was 30yrs was for a reason and has nothing to do with any logic you think you can come up with

a baby even though a 'sinner' due to Adamic nature is still innocent and does not need baptism to be saved yet

A-ZeD:

@OP
1) is there any verse/place in the bible where a marriage took place in the church/synagogue??
2) Who was ever called a pastor/rev/bishop in the bible

maybe you should read about the Jews to get answers to your questions

That's no answer to his questions.

The jews were not christians.

So show us in the bible where there was a christian wedding officiated by a priest, pastor etc

And show us where there was anything like reverend, pastor etc

If you do, there are still many things you'll have to show us in the bible which we have in modern day christendom.

@ walcom to Dozzy 3

Thanks for the answer given to Dozzy 3. Biblical things and teachings are not of human thinking i.e you ca't think or make asertions for what is not written in the bible. If John baptized the Infants, it wouldnt have cost the bible to say it and  it would have said so, do you think that the bible is foolish and you are very wise then you dont need to read the bible if you can think for the bible.
i tell you there were a lot of doctrinal teachings that are not based on the WORD of GOD but from human thoughts and logical reasoning. Then why do it, when it wasn't spelt out and you were even doing it in a wrong way(sprinkly). Then there are heretical notion and motives attached to it.

plappville -
Anwser this question, if infant baptism was needed, why didnt Jesus mother Baptise him when he was infant? Why will they ve to ignore it if it was the best option for us? Everything Jesus did was how things are surposed to be done, he showed us example of how things should be done. We are following his steps. We should not misinterpret paul in anyway.

Quite simply, because Jesus' parents were Jewish and He was raised as a Jew. Yes, baptism (mikveh in Hebrew) existed before Christianity, but it was generally used for cleansing, not for dedication to God. I am Christian, and I choose infant baptism because it is symbolic of my dedication to God, and a partial fulfillment of my responsibility to "bring my child up in the way that he should go". In the same manner as circumcision was done before my child's 8th day on earth.

Jesus' baptism (by John) marked the beginning of, and the ACCEPTANCE of, His ministry - repentance of sins and salvation. His baptism, His life and his death were for my sins and yours, not His! Jesus' appearance at the Temple at the age of 12 was quite possibly in preparation for the Jewish Bat Mitzvah (coming of age), which for boys occurs at the age of 13, until he was led by the spirit to challenge the religious focus of some of the Rabbi's, to the detriment of the Word! In addition, His baptism at around the age of 30 was predestined, and led by the Holy Spirit. His death at around the age of 33 was also predestined! These are not "examples" - this was His destiny, and does not suggest that every Christian must be baptized at 30 or die at 33!

The Bible in its simplicity tries to teach us to accept the Word as a child accepts the word of its parents. Let us not make something so beautiful a matter of public debate. Accept spirituality for what it means to YOU, or leave it be. Do not focus on the rites of RELIGION, or make yourself the religious police, condemning others who do things differently from you.

walcolm:

following your logical line of thinking, was there any instance where baptism by sprinkling of water   was done in the bible?
even if a baby will be baptised, the bible baptism clearly shows it has to be by full immersion in water

Jesus not getting baptised until he was 30yrs was for a reason and has nothing to do with any logic you think you can come up with

a baby even though a 'sinner' due to Adamic nature is still innocent and does not need baptism to be saved yet

Thank u for pouring out good points, if they really wants to hold on to the househood fact, then why the sprinkling of water? Nthing of this existed in the record of baptism in the entire bible!

@Italo, u argue blindly, the bible verses u presenred were not explained. I will get back to u though.

plappville:

Thank u for pouring out good points, if they really wants to hold on to the househood fact, then why the sprinkling of water? Nthing of this existed in the record of baptism in the entire bible!

@Italo, u argue blindly, the bible verses u presenred were not explained. I will get back to u though.

Is this the best you can come up with? How do I argue blindly?

I said you are so ignorant, you don't know that it is baptism that makes one a Catholic yet you come here and spew that famous lie - or line: "I was once a Catholic".

Pls get back to me as you said and when you do, do so with the names and ages of the now famous 'HOUSEHOLDS' we were talking about. Then we can move to sprinkling of water. One after the other.

plappville:

Thank u for pouring out good points, if they really wants to hold on to the househood fact, then why the sprinkling of water? Nthing of this existed in the record of baptism in the entire bible!

@Italo, u argue blindly, the bible verses u presenred were not explained. I will get back to u though.

You still have not answered my question concerning marriage in the church or the bible verse that supports calling people pastors/rev/bishops

the order of infant or thgis time of baptism is wrong.

Simply put; the order says repent and be Baptized NOT baptized and repent.

you cannot be baptized except you have become born again. E.G the family of Cornelious were baptized after recieving the Gospel, same for the Ethopian Eunoch. etc.

the baptism by John was a Baptism of Repetence in preparation for what is to come. the baptism by the Word (water) and Fire (Holy Spirit.

the best the parent can do is to bring up the child in the ways of the Lord. the decision to become born agian solely rest on him (Rom 10:10)

Jesus said in john 3:5-No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is baptised with water and holy spirit. He alsocommanded us to baptize all nations and all households. Do u think that infants were excluded by these. Definitely not my brother. Also while there is no place it was written that infants shld be baptised there is also no place it was said that infants shld not be baptised.pls tell me the age that a man begin to sin. We are all born in sin and we all need baptism.

I was a Catholic and my Dad refused us (my younger ones) infant baptism because he felt we are to decide on our own. It was his shot to call and nothing else and he made that decision, just like every other parent will choose for the child. But why should we be arguing this.
Why is this infant Baptism thing a problem now? Instead of us thinking on how to build our Relationship with God, we are arguing. the argument has led us already to sin. I think Paul has said it all in Romans 14: 1 to end.

1. As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions.
2.  One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables.
3. Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him
4. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand.

Read to the end.

Paul was not talking about foods alone but so many things we call doctrine that has divided the church so much. What is important now is your relationship with God and nothing else.  instead we come here trying to tell people how our own denomination is the best while others are sinners. Guard your tongue brethren because we are not God and He only has the right to judge.

Before i make my comment on this topic, i'd like a Catholic brother or sister to clearly explain the steps/processes involved in infant baptism.
Having said that, let me quickly correct what cdz wrote in his first post- "there's no place in the bible where it is written that you can only be saved when you believe in Jesus Christ" (paraphrased).
Let's examine these verses:
Acts 4:11-12:  For Jesus is the one referred to in the Scriptures, where it says, ‘The stone that you builders rejected has now become the cornerstone.’ There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.”
Salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone.

the order is:

REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED

AND NOT BAPTIZED AND REPENT.

THE ISSUE OF BORN AGAIN IS A DECISION YOU MUST TAKE NOBODY WILL EVER TAKE IT UN YOUR BEHALF.

YOU WILL NEVER SEE THIS HERETIC ORDER ANY WHERE IN THE BIBLE.

The major principle is that baptism, as the sign and means of God's love that precedes any action on our part and that frees from original sin and communicates divine life, must not be delayed. The subordinate principle is that assurances must be given that the gift thus granted can grow by authentic education in the faith and Christian life. If these assurances are not really serious, there can be grounds for delaying baptism. If they are certainly absent, the sacrament should even be refused.[30]

Accordingly, the rules for involvement on the part of practising Christian parents must be supplemented with other considerations in the case of "families with little faith or non-Christian families". If these request that a child of theirs be baptised, there must be assurances that the child will be given the benefit of the Christian upbringing required by the sacrament. Examples of such assurances are "the choice of godparents who will take sincere care of the child, or the support of the community". If there is satisfactory assurance, i.e. "any pledge giving a well-founded hope for the Christian upbringing of the children", then "the priest cannot refuse to celebrate the sacrament without delay, as in the case of children of Christian families". If there is insufficient assurance, "it will be prudent to delay baptism", while keeping contact with the parents in the hope of securing the required conditions for celebrating the sacrament. As a last resort, enrollment of the child in a course of catechetical instruction on reaching school age, can be offered in lieu of immediate celebration of baptism.

golamike:

Before i make my comment on this topic, i'd like a Catholic  brother or sister to clearly explain the steps/processes involved in infant baptism.
Having said that, let me quickly correct what cdz wrote in his first post- "there's no place in the bible where it is written that you can only be saved when you believe in Jesus Christ" (paraphrased).
Let's examine these verses:
Acts 4:11-12:  For Jesus is the one referred to in the Scriptures, where it says, ‘The stone that you builders rejected has now become the cornerstone.’ There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.”
Salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone.

manmacho:

the order is:

REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED

AND NOT BAPTIZED AND REPENT.

THE ISSUE OF BORN AGAIN IS A DECISION YOU MUST TAKE NOBODY WILL EVER TAKE IT UN YOUR BEHALF.

YOU WILL NEVER SEE THIS HERETIC ORDER ANY WHERE IN THE BIBLE.

So why was Jesus baptized since according to you, one has to repent before being Baptized

golamike:

Before i make my comment on this topic, i'd like a Catholic brother or sister to clearly explain the steps/processes involved in infant baptism.
Having said that, let me quickly correct what cdz wrote in his first post- "there's no place in the bible where it is written that you can only be saved when you believe in Jesus Christ" (paraphrased).
Let's examine these verses:
Acts 4:11-12:  For Jesus is the one referred to in the Scriptures, where it says, ‘The stone that you builders rejected has now become the cornerstone.’ There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.”
Salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone.

The parents and God-parents of the child see the priest and promise to bring up the child in the way of the lord. Aside the admin process!!

A-ZeD:

The parents and God-parents of the child see the priest and promise to bring up the child in the way of the lord.  Aside the admin process!!

Thanks A-Zed for your response but i  honestly don't  understand your point. Is this what you call infant baptism No physical contact (of the child) with water and no special service or programme for that? I DOUBT! Baptism is way beyond meeting the priest on behalf of your child and promising to bring him/her up in the way of the Lord.

@Ojukwu24, No accusation to anyone here as sinner, the way the catholic practice baptism is wrong if looked into the word and meaning of batism. If they sin to God by doing so that is for God to judge them. I ve reasons for posting this thread and the thread itself stated the reasons. There are many ignorants out there today in the catholic that believe that, just for the sake their infants are baptised, they are saved, Salvation in this case is enrased. There is no bad or evil intension in purlging out certain things that seem not to biblical. If u love Jesus, u will be unconfortable seeing many been led astray from Godly doctrine, Loving God/Jesus is not only to be contended by urself. I u u can rescue soul for him why not do it?

@A-ZeD:You still have not answered my question concerning marriage in the church or the bible verse that supports calling people pastors/rev/bishops

This thread is on Baptism, i wouldn't like to divert from it. If u want us to treat Marriage u can start up a thread on it, i will comment if it's needed pending on its contents.

I think i ve answered someone here about the PASTOR etc stuffs. The name pastor was nothing, the work of the pastor is what u should be counting on, no one talks about why the name of CATHOLIC should be Catholic or why the POPE should be called Pope, what is behind the names is what matters.

@ golamike
Please read my post again - with a clear mind (and eye) - and pay particular attention to the words in capital letters.

I wonder if Christians know that Christianity came into existence before the bible. And by the bible, I mean the new testament because the old testament IS NOT a Christian text. The early Christians, therefore, did not have a bible to refer to and argue from. Yet they were not worse Christians than us. How do you think they got doctrine? And as I said earlier, the bible is silent on the issue of smoking. Why is it that many protestants accept that it is a sin? And if we must live and act ONLY according to the bible, why do you call your head pastor a G. O.?

The concept of sola scriptura is one vexed issue that protestants can't possibly convince anyone on. Even when our Lord categorically said in scripture that except one drank His Blood and ate His Flesh one would not have life, we brushed that aside and pretended it didn't matter. Just how much of the eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood are we doing? Arguments of the bible and the bible alone come into focus when it suits us.

Is this the best you can come up with? How do I argue blindly?

I said you are so ignorant, you don't know that it is baptism that makes one a Catholic yet you come here and spew that famous lie - or line: "I was once a Catholic".

Pls get back to me as you said and when you do, do so with the names and ages of the now famous 'HOUSEHOLDS' we were talking about. Then we can move to sprinkling of water. One after the other

What else were u expecting? all the points i ve made here even with the biblica back up,yet u kept persisting, even when the truth is wide before ur eyes. So baptism makes u catholic not Christ? This is funny.U must know that, it is the (Bible),but not the pope, to be the central means to discern God’s word. All doctrines outside the bible are demonic. even if, the outside seem to be Christian doctrine.

How could u even claim that i write lies  about me been an x-catholic? .
Should i come here and lie against myself? I am a christian, i dont lie even if its a forum, i believe there are many people who come here with good intention to learn to grow in Christ,To what gain should i lie?

You ve gotten my post on this before, if u are not clear enough, u can let it, i am not to repeat verses that u seem to be ignoring thier facts.

italo:

That's no answer to his questions.

The jews were not christians.

So show us in the bible where there was a christian wedding officiated by a priest, pastor etc

And show us where there was anything like reverend, pastor etc

If you do, there are still many things you'll have to show us in the bible which we have in modern day christendom.

U are trying to expand things, the main topic is about baptism. So this baptism has linked u to expanciate the thread, [b]show us this, show us that! [/b]all in trying to prove a point?, infact, u are not doing any good becus, this will reveal things that are nt surposed to be as par secret practice of the Roman catholic, That are not biblical in anyway.

I ve a good web site that will help u, it has biblical backup of its facts .
I send them step by stem becos u do not like when its long. mind u, i did not write them by myself.

Overview of how Catholic faith contradicts the Bible

1. Calling the Priests "Father" is forbidden

FACT: Catholics are taught to call their priest, "Father", as a religious title of respect. Christians in the first century never called their leaders, "father". This first happened hundreds of years later.

Question #1: Does Jesus approve of calling the leaders of the church, "Father"?

Answer:

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9