A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.

[Dokimas]

Doki,* Doki*-
This is getting embarassing. If you can’t answer it - just say so.
Are you up for the challenge or not?
I have asked you twice now:

Can you please give me a clear and comprehensive response to what the Fathers taught about infant Baptism and how they not only supported it but practiced it?

I issue this challenge to ALL Protestants who deny infant Baptism.

I have no clue what your church father taught about infant baptism except what you and other have said. I know what the Bible teaches and there in NO evidence it teaches infant baptism; there’s tons of logical reasons to believe infants were not baptized.

 

[elvisman]

Was Catholic now Baptist.
Show me one example in the Bible where a infant, child was baptized? The whole household does not count in this example for the word infant, child is not there.
Show me one example in the Bible where a adult was baptized?
What did they need to do inorder to be baptized?

Show me one place in Scripture where somebody is baptized - not an adult - but somebody at the random “age of reason” I always hear about from my Protestant friends.

While you’re at it - can you answer the question I’ve been asking Protestants for days now?
Nobody has been able to do it yet:

Can you please give me a clear and comprehensive response to what the Fathers taught about infant Baptism and how they not only supported it but practiced it?**

I issue this challenge to ALL Protestants who deny infant Baptism.

 

[elvisman]

I have not clue what your church father taught about infant baptism except what you and other have said. I know what the Bible teaches and there in NO evidence it teaches infant baptism; there’s tons of logical reasons to believe infants were not baptized.

That’s not a comprehensive answer to the question. It is yet another cop-out.
I already listed what the ECFs said about infant Baptism, but I’ll paste it again, in case you haven’t read it:

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Baptize first the children**, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 A.D.215]).**

**Origen
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]). **

Gregory of Nazianz
**“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (*Oration on Holy Baptism *40:7 [A.D. 388]).

John Chrysostom**
**“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Cyprian
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 A.D. 253]).

Augustine
It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated** . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, “Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents” or “by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,” but, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.” The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 A.D. 408]).**

 

[Dokimas]

We’re now going in circles with those who don’t want to accept what the bible says… YES it does show little children being baptised in the bible

38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

But then I think RevKev tried to turn this scripture around saying that it’s for a FUTURE promise that Jesus was giving to the children but it’s a promise for the adults right now. Meanwhile this promise is said in the same sentence!

Why not just accept scripture?

I’d love to take a close look at your verses:

Appears there’s an order to the verses:

1. do penance (do infants do penance?)
2. get baptized (it’s not clear if infants get baptized)
3. baptism is for the remission of sins (do infants have sins to remit?)
4. receive the Holy Spirit (do infants receive the Holy Spirit?)
5. The promise (is the promise for anyone - those who do and those who don’t do penance?)

Looking at 1-4 3 out of 4 seem to be for those old enough to do penance, have sins needing remittence, receive the Holy Spirit. Logic then says, IMO, infants don’t need to be baptized - Their in God’s loving care until they are old enough to do penance, have sins to remit and able to receive the Holy Spirit.​

The promise is a future promise: all those far off.

 

[Dokimas]

That’s not a comprehensive answer to the question. It is yet another cop-out.
I already listed what the ECFs said about infant Baptism, but I’ll paste it again, in case you haven’t read it:

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Baptize first the children**, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition** 21:16 A.D.215]).

**Origen
**“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (*Oration on Holy Baptism *40:7 [A.D. 388]).

John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (*Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian *1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Cyprian
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 A.D. 253]).

Augustine
It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated** . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, “Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents” or “by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,” but, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.” The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters** 98:2 A.D. 408]).

Thank you for you dilligent work. Now we know what they believed (if the record is accurate). So, if my understanding is correct, they they misunderstood and visa versa.

 

[Dokimas]

While you’re at it - can you answer the question I’ve been asking Protestants for days now?
Nobody has been able to do it yet:

Can you please give me a clear and comprehensive response to what the Fathers taught about infant Baptism and how they not only supported* it but practiced it?*

I issue this challenge to ALL Protestants who deny infant Baptism.

You did it for us; why should we do it again? Can we do it better than you? I doubt it.

 

[Dokimas]

Show me one place in Scripture where somebody is baptized - not an adult - but somebody at the random “age of reason” I always hear about from my Protestant friends.

If I understand this sentance, I, for one, can’t show you one time in the NT where a non-adult (including young, middle and older adults) got baptized.

 

[the_Assyrian_1]

Elvisman, - I like your stance, doing a WONDERFUL job…

God need NOT justify his methods to an obstonate mind. Whoever it may be.

I am a catholic, and I “hung” with the protestant lot for a long time. They continued to deny my original infant baptism, which is a sin may I add, because it was accepted to the LORD, “I know this” because as a child I had the need to confess sin continually growing up…

I know this is confirmation of the sacriment, because as I had my second baptism (evanglical/believers baptism) as an adult I had the same urge (to confess sin)… so my point is that they are both VALID and ACCEPTABLE to the LORD.

But ONE group should NOT be undermining another, which is what is happening (if Im not mistaken).

I hope this helps the debate…
Peace
Mark Out… x

 

[rev_kevin]

Show me one place in Scripture where somebody is baptized - not an adult - but somebody at the random “age of reason” I always hear about from my Protestant friends.

While you’re at it - can you answer the question I’ve been asking Protestants for days now?
Nobody has been able to do it yet:

Can you please give me a clear and comprehensive response to what the Fathers taught about infant Baptism and how they not only supported* it but practiced it?*

I issue this challenge to ALL Protestants who deny infant Baptism.

Hippolytus-“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” {The Apostolic Tradition}

Origen- Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin…In the Church,baptism is given for the remission of sins, and according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants…{Homilies on Leviticus 8:3}

I will continue in a few, got to get my son from school.

 

[SyCarl]

Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
(Act 2:37-39 NASB)

I think it is important to remember the context of this passage. Peter was speaking in Jerusalem to a primarily Jewish audience. He had just finished a sermon in which he related the Old Testament promises to what had happened at Pentecost. His Jewish audience would have been well acquainted with the Old Covenant and the promises made under it. They would have been aware that Israel had been instructed to circumcise all male infants as the sign of the covenant promises. With baptism being the sign of the New Covenant, a Jewish audience would understand “For the promise is for you and your children” with the mindset of those who had been brought up under Old Covenant. The promises had been to Abraham and his descendants. These promises were claimed by circumcision of infants as well as adults. Peter said nothing that would change the practice of claiming the promises for children, and in the absence of such an instruction it would be presumed that the practice would continue to be to claim the promises for children now through baptism rather than circumcision.

This does not mean that sins are forgiven by water baptism any more than they were by physical circumcision. Paul speaks of true Jews as being those who had been circumcised in the heart by the Spirit. That did not take place at the physical circumcision and similarly baptism by the Holy Spirit does not take place with the outward sacrament but when the person actually believes.

 

[peary]

I’m interested in why someone wouldn’t have a choice. The Bible mentions many examples that gives a choice to follow or leave, we were created with the ability to think, discern good and evil by the standards God set, which sets us apart from animals.

All in respect, thanks.

It has been a tradition of the Church to baptize infants since its earliest days (and that includes the orthodox churches too). In Gen. 17:12 and Lev. 12:3, these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

It was always the standard practice in the Church to have the infant baptized within eight days of its birth. Many times, the baptism would take place immediately after birth if the child showed that he or she was about to die. One can learn this by simply pouring over genealogical records.

In Mark 10:14 Jesus saying to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Might I also add that in Luke 18:15 Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

And, another point to be made: in Mark 16:16 Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.”

 

[Loboto-Me]

I think it is important to remember the context of this passage. Peter was speaking in Jerusalem to a primarily Jewish audience. He had just finished a sermon in which he related the Old Testament promises to what had happened at Pentecost. His Jewish audience would have been well acquainted with the Old Covenant and the promises made under it. They would have been aware that Israel had been instructed to circumcise all male infants as the sign of the covenant promises. With baptism being the sign of the New Covenant, a Jewish audience would understand “For the promise is for you and your children” with the mindset of those who had been brought up under Old Covenant. The promises had been to Abraham and his descendants. These promises were claimed by circumcision of infants as well as adults. Peter said nothing that would change the practice of claiming the promises for children, and in the absence of such an instruction it would be presumed that the practice would continue to be to claim the promises for children now through baptism rather than circumcision.

This does not mean that sins are forgiven by water baptism any more than they were by physical circumcision. Paul speaks of true Jews as being those who had been circumcised in the heart by the Spirit. That did not take place at the physical circumcision and similarly baptism by the Holy Spirit does not take place with the outward sacrament but when the person actually believes.

I quite agree with this. Except that baptism DOES erase the stain of original sin which all are born with. What takes place at a baby’s baptism is the erasing of original sin and reception of the Holy Spirit which will work in the child’s life should he allow it to. Like the Jews, Christians must instruct their children into the faith… the faith doesn’t automatically get an “on” switch at baptism, much like the jewish circumcision didn’t turn an “on” switch for them.

Baptism also leaves an indelible mark on ones soul as children of God/Christ. He set that system up as children of the new covenant like His Father set the first covenant system up of circumcision at 8 days old.

 

[rev_kevin]

Show me one place in Scripture where somebody is baptized - not an adult - but somebody at the random “age of reason” I always hear about from my Protestant friends.

While you’re at it - can you answer the question I’ve been asking Protestants for days now?
Nobody has been able to do it yet:

Can you please give me a clear and comprehensive response to what the Fathers taught about infant Baptism and how they not only supported* it but practiced it?*

I issue this challenge to ALL Protestants who deny infant Baptism.

Don’t answer a question with a question. Now I answered your Prostestant question which is the same one you posted, now answer my question.
Acts 2:41 “Those who BELIEVED what Peter said were baptized adn added to the church about three thousand in all.” Now if you look at the word BELIEVE it would stand to reason that it is a person of the “age of reason,” a infant don’t have the ability to believe.

 

[Loboto-Me]

I’d love to take a close look at your verses:

Appears there’s an order to the verses:

1. do penance (do infants do penance?)
2. get baptized (it’s not clear if infants get baptized)
3. baptism is for the remission of sins (do infants have sins to remit?)
4. receive the Holy Spirit (do infants receive the Holy Spirit?)
5. The promise (is the promise for anyone - those who do and those who don’t do penance?)

Looking at 1-4 3 out of 4 seem to be for those old enough to do penance, have sins needing remittence, receive the Holy Spirit. Logic then says, IMO, infants don’t need to be baptized - Their in God’s loving care until they are old enough to do penance, have sins to remit and able to receive the Holy Spirit.​

The promise is a future promise: all those far off.

Nope babies don’t need to do penance, but then Jesus is adressing the adults who can understand what He’s saying, Jesus also promises this to their children which must rely on their parents’ faith to grow in Christ.
Yes the promise is for anyone who does and doesn’t do penance because Jesus is also including the children (some of which can’t do penance because they’re too young) The adults must do penance, the children don’t have to until they know what sin is.
Babies have to remit the stain of original sin… yes
Babies receive the holy spirit… yes. If Jesus loved children so much why would He deny the gift of the Holy Spirit to them? Just because babies can’t show the fruit of the Holy Spirit until they’re much older doesn’t mean that they don’t have the HS or He isn’t working in the child.

Do you not believe in original sin?

 

[Dokimas]

Don’t answer a question with a question. Now I answered your Prostestant question which is the same one you posted, now answer my question.
Acts 2:41 “Those who BELIEVED what Peter said were baptized adn added to the church about three thousand in all.” Now if you look at the word BELIEVE it would stand to reason that it is a person of the “age of reason,” a infant don’t have the ability to believe.

Sound reasoning, IMO.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Don’t answer a question with a question. Now I answered your Prostestant question which is the same one you posted, now answer my question.
Acts 2:41 “Those who BELIEVED what Peter said were baptized adn added to the church about three thousand in all.” Now if you look at the word BELIEVE it would stand to reason that it is a person of the “age of reason,” a infant don’t have the ability to believe.

Well yeah, as a male I wouldn’t go get “sacramentally circumcised” in a jewish synagogue if I didn’t believe. But jews everyday go to have their babies circumcised by the faith of their parents. Christians go into churches to get their babies baptised on the faith of the parents.

 

[Dokimas]

Nope babies don’t need to do penance, but then Jesus is adressing the adults who can understand what He’s saying, Jesus also promises this to their children which must rely on their parents’ faith to grow in Christ.
Yes the promise is for anyone who does and doesn’t do penance because Jesus is also including the children (some of which can’t do penance because they’re too young)
Babies have to remit the stain of original sin… yes
Babies receive the holy spirit… yes. If Jesus loved children so much why would He deny the gift of the Holy Spirit to them? Just because babies can’t show the fruit of the Holy Spirit until they’re much older doesn’t mean that they don’t have the HS or He isn’t working in the child.

Do you not believe in original sin?

Do you mean Peter (see highlighted above)?

How do babies choose to remit their sins?

We disagree that babies receive the Holy Spirit.

I believe in original sin and that Jesus loves the little children so much they don’t need to be baptized until they can choose for themselves that they have sinned and want to repent.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

I do!

brother Richard Kastner,

I can understand how you can think they (the ECF’s) were mistaken if you are so certain of your view, but are you at least willing to entertain the possibility that you are the one who is mistaken on this topic and not they (if you support “Believer’s Baptism” and or deny infant baptism.)?

I think that it is logical to expect that if the Apostles had held to “Believer’s Baptism” in that it was merely an outward symbol and that it was not proper to baptise infants, then one should expect the successors of the Apostles to hold this view. As the quotes from the ECF’s point out, they in fact did not; or none that I am aware of at least. Please show me if you find one to the contrary.

Will you agree that if the Bible does not specifically address infant baptism, than it does not specifically forbid it either? As you can see by others posts, a case can be made for the Catholic view(s) on Baptism on a Scriptural basis. To me, regarding the Scriptural evidence for infant baptism, this is a case of one of our beliefs being reflected in Scripture but not necessarily explicitly taught in Scripture (see my comments on the Bible as an instruction manual below.)

Since the testimonies of the earliest Christians we have who wrote on the matter besides the Divinely inspired author’s themselves seem to me to be unanimous on Baptismal Regeneration (at least to those properly disposed) and infant baptism, I think it is reasonable to suspect “Believer’s Baptism” as a novelty. We know that Scripture can be misinterpreted and even twisted (not that you are intentionally twisting Scripture or even doing it for that matter.) Given that fact, and the fact that St. Peter tells us in Scripture that:

"15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3&version=KJV) (Accessed 4/ 5/ 10).

If Scripture written by St. Paul is subject to being “wrest” by the “unlerned and unstable”, I think that it’s not such a stretch for one to assume that this cann happen with other Scripture. This is where I believe Sacred Tradition comes in to play, to help the Church from not misinterpreting or accepting misinterpretations of Sacred Scripture.

I have come to believe that the Bible is not an instruction manuel nor does it read like one, but it certainly contains many instructions. I believe that if the Bible is seperated from Sacred Tradition (which I believe includes the writing’s of the ECF’s), then this facilitates the misinterpretation of Scripture.

So given that misinterpretations of Scripture are possible (as I believe I have established), what evidence can you offer me outside of Scripture that your rejection of infant Baptism is warranted?

peace

Lion… that was a great post. It looks like early church history means nothing to those who reject infant baptism. The traditions of the early church that Christ himself founded.

Matthew

 

[tweetymom]

That gave me a chuckle.

Tweety, you continue to claim to be a Cathoic yet you preach and defend the protestant faith well.

And I probably will continue to be me.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Do you mean Peter (see highlighted above)?

How do babies choose to remit their sins?

We disagree that babies receive the Holy Spirit.

I believe in original sin and that Jesus loves the little children so much they don’t need to be baptized until they can choose for themselves that they have sinned and want to repent.

Oops yup I meant Peter LOL!
The act of baptism removes the sin, therefore remitting the sin in the waters of baptism.
Since the apostles believed in infant baptism as evidenced in the ECF writtings I tend to believe what has been taught.

Although I believe that Jesus loves little children and would provide for them whether baptised or not, we are only human and can overlook the spiritual growth of our children. Am I willing as a parent to take the slightest chance with his soul when it was already stated in the bible that we were to be baptised to be recognised as a child of God? The Early Church didn’t take that chance, I sure wouldn’t.