Catholicism is not Biblical

Unless leonardo.sanchez decides to argue in the next round, it appears this debate may be a dud. Nevertheless, I will post an argument regarding infant baptism to "replace" my argument on baptism from the previous round. This is due to a misunderstanding I had about baptism in the Catholic Church. See the comments for details. Infant baptism- the mostly Catholic belief that babies must be freed from their "sinful nature" and "the power of darkness" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994). Most Catholics will support infant baptism by claiming that all humans bear Adam's "original sin" and must be relieved of this burden. First of all, there is absolutely no Biblical command to baptize infants, nor is there any mention of it to begin with. Most Catholics support it by quoting verses that they claim would authorize infant baptism, but these claims can easily be demonstrated to be false. I will examine some of these claims and provide a Biblical refutation for each claim. 1. Infants are born with Adam's sin; therefore, they must be immediately cleansed of it. Yet in Ezekiel 18:20, it is clear that a child cannot be punished for the sins of his father. This command is mentioned several times in the Old Testament, usually in the form of "the son shall not be put to death for his father's sins; each shall be put to death for their own sins." Since no child can bear his father's sins, then ultimately, nobody bears Adam's sin. We inherited his sinful nature, but not by any means his actual sin. 2. Mark 16:15 says to preach the gospel to and baptize all creation. This obviously includes infants. The context of this verse makes it clear that "every creature" includes all creatures that have the gospel preached to them, understand it, and choose to repent. This is why we don't baptize plants, inanimate objects, or our pet cats and dogs. The same line of reasoning applies to infants. You can preach to infants all day, but they certainly will not have any clue what you are saying and do not yet have the presence of mind to choose to repent. This is why the decision to put on Christ in baptism must come when a person is aware of the decision he is making and is ready to carry out the responsibilities of a Christian. One must examine a verse in its proper context before jumping to a hasty conclusion. 3. The Apostles baptized regularly baptized children and "all the household" of several people. First of all, how can we be sure that somebody's whole "household" meant every single member of the family? It is hasty reasoning to assume such. As a matter of fact, in the context of the New Testament, we see who was baptized in these kinds of families. Consider the Philippian jailer in Acts 16. Luke tells us in particular which members of the family were baptized. Verse 34 reads: “And he brought them (Paul and Silas) into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.” Are infants capable of “rejoicing greatly” because of “having believed in God”? The obvious answer is no. Going back to my original point, it is hasty reasoning to assume that a person’s “whole household” included every member right down to the infants. The passages say that the people who were baptized believed in God and rejoiced, two things that infants are not capable of. Nowhere, then, does the Bible imply examples of infant baptism. I conclude my arguments for this debate.