Apology for infant baptism...HELP!

[windlessuser]

Hey guys, asking for some help. I was trying to be Apologetic on why we perform infant baptism to a few SDA and baptist friends of mine. Their belief is that baptism should be a concious choice. My Apology is that Jesus said that baptism is a requirement i.e not optional for salvation( Forgive my bastardisation of his words, I’m kinda of weak when it comes to quoting scripture). We also acknowledge that works alone cannot save you so wither the person still lives a good and moral life with the full knowledge of Gods requirements of us without adhering to them is fruitless. Therefore, while we are waiting for the person to consciously choose to be baptised anything can happen to them. While my friends could understand in the case of an adult, they then bend the argument by saying that my premise would mean that all stillborns, aborted children and children who die b4 being baptised would be condemned and lost before they can expression and make choices of their own. They claim they would believe this, provided that i can show them that god IS cruel. My apology for that is that case is only becomes a problem for one who does not believe in purgatory which is another discussion on its own.

I then try to get them to look at it this way. As a child, did you have a choice to wither you went to school or not? Did you have a choice to wither you could eat or even wear clothes, etc or not? No, because our reasoning ability hasn’t been developed or fully developed yet. Granted there are some things that we know instinctively like holding our breath under water for example, but there are tons of things we just don’t know unless we are taught. That’s why are parents are there to make decisions for us in our best interest. Your parents send you to school because its in your best interest that you get an education just to name a few. Now since baptism is a requirement for salvation, isn’t it within our best interest that we are baptised? Isn’t the parent not only responsible for our physical but spiritual well being and development as well? That’s why the church believes that the parent’s and church’s belief in Christ can substitute for the child’s and they can be baptised as an infant and have the faith implanted in him/her as they develop.

Now even with an Apology like that, they still fumble that it should be concious choice of child as we are all held accountable for our own actions and that i was taking the argument out of context with the they whole the parent send you to school in ur best interest thing.

I could use some help in adding some more substance to my argument. Some scripture would be nice as i said im weak in that regard. comments are also Welcome

Pax Domini

 

[zz912]

A couple thoughts. Quick background, I was raised Baptist and disagreed with infant baptism as well, But after researching the reasons and basis for it, I now agree with the Church’s position.

1. Ask them if the covenant instituted with Moses was invalid. Circumcision was performed on male infants at a week old. Were these infants not properly enrolled into the covenant? Of course not. It was ordered directly by God.
2. In the New Testament (by the way, Testament means covenant, so the OT and NT mean Old Covenant and New Covenant), there are multiple examples of the apostles baptizing whole families, which would most definitely included children and infants. Families were huge then.
3. We reafirm our baptismal vows each time we use holy water and cross ourselves. We reafirm our vows at each Easter.
4. The sacrament of Confirmation is done at the age of reason. If this is their concern, this should satisfy their concerns over infants not making a conscious decision.
5. Jesus said to bring the children to Me. We are fulfilling this command by infant baptism.

 

[Roman_Army]

It is clear that Jesus taught his disciples to be like little Children in their faith, obeying their parent (symbolizing God) in everything. It is clear from this he meant that it was good that parents do everything necessary to save their children spiritually. That is why there was circumcision in the Old Testament, it was a prefigurement of baptism. The parents were bringing their children to Jesus for a spiritual blessing, the apostles rebuked them precisely because they felt the children’s lack of maturity and lack of reason disqualified them from such spiritual blessings which would lead them to the kingdom of heaven. Then Jesus told the apostles not to hinder them but to let them come to him for the kingdom of heaven is theirs and that the apostles should be more like children in the way they are obedient to their parents. This directly supports infant baptism. If Jesus were around today he would clearly condemn your protestant friends’ denigrating of children and such low expectations of them. I would challenge your protestant friends to explain why God required baby boys to be circumcised. Baptism is the Christian replacement of circumcision. Baptism is the circumcision of the heart.

See:

Matt 19-13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; Matt. 18:2-3; 1 Cor. 14:20

 

[Philthy]

I could use some help in adding some more substance to my argument. Some scripture would be nice as i said im weak in that regard. comments are also Welcome
Pax Domini

Ask them where in Scripture is infant baptism prohibited.
Know in advance that there is no such text in Scripture.
Then tell them the earliest Christians baptized infants and that you believe, like the earliest Christians that infant baptism in valid. Check out the library stuff here as well:
catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

Others here have given very good reasoning’s

I see it this way…
Baptism enters us into Gods covenant.
Confirmation affirms that covenant.

You might ask, "Does Baptism automatically confirm Gifts of the Holy Spirit on the one receiving it? Many Baptists place much value on these Gifts rightfully so, IMHO ], But will tell you the importance of Confirmation in scripture is needed. In other words Baptism makes you an infant in Christ and from there you grow. Than ask what is the difference?

As always, just my thoughts

 

[Benadam]

Most SDA and Baptists believe that Baptism is an outward sign of something that has already occurred inwardly. This is not the Catholic belief. In fact that belief leads right down the slippery slope of a baptism that Jesus would not teach as necessary for salvation. Not once was an external thing taught as necessary by Jesus. Remember this? It went roughly like this:

It’s not what goes in the mouth that matters for that just passes through the body and ends up in the sewer. It’s what comes out of the mouth that matters for a man’s words reveals his heart.

So why would Jesus teach, if Baptism was merely symbolic, that it is necessary for salvation and fail to mention the salvation that it symbolizes and has already happened?

We believe that Baptism requires power. John the Baptist said, I have power to Baptize. But one is coming who will Baptize you in fire. Fire speaks of substantial change. God entered into human life and humanity recieves the divine pattern of life that is death to resurrection. Through His spirit we can recieve that pattern of life because it is a human life.

 

[Pax]

windlessuser in Christ,

Paul says the following in 1 Corintians 10:1-4

“I WANT you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

This is an abundantly clear OT prefiguring of baptism and being saved by baptism. The number of Israelites that left Egypt in Exodus is described as follows:

Exodus 12:37-38
And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. A mixed multitude also went up with them, and very many cattle, both flocks and herds.

It is obvious from this account and Paul’s reference to passing through the Red Sea and baptism that the sacrament of baptism is for men, women, and children.

---

INFANT BAPTISM
Let’s look at Ezekiel first and then the rest of scripture that is appropriate to “infant baptism” without focusing only on scriptures that talk about the requirement of faith in a general sense.

The passage from Ezekiel is spoken to the “House of Israel.” This obviously includes children. Children were brought into the OT family of God through circumcision on the eigth day after birth. Now let’s compare the passage from Ezekiel to Acts 2:37-39.

Ezekiel says:
“I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.”

The Book of Acts says:
“Repent and be and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven.”

Ezekiel says:
“A new heart I will give you,”

The Book of Acts says:
“Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart”

Ezekiel says:
“I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.”

The Book of Acts says:
“and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Ezekiel says:
“Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.”

The Book of Acts says:
“For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

The two passages are mirror images of one another and it is clear that the OT family of God included children and infants. Likewise, the Book of Acts even says that “the promise is to you and to your children.”

We also see infant baptism reinforced elsewhere in scripture in a number of powerful ways. The last verse in the passage from Ezekiel speaks to the House of Israel saying, “you shall be my people, and I will be your God.” This obviously includes children and infants. In the New Covenant we hear these same words. The following examples should be helpful:

Romans 9:25
Those who were not my people I will call my people…

2 Cor 6:6
I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Hebrews 8:10
I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant for the old is only a shadow of the good things to come. Obviously, infants must be included in the New Covenant or it is inferior to the old covenant. Paul makes the connection between circumcision for the Old Covenant and baptism in the New Covenant when he says the following:

Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (i.e.,baptism replaces circumcision and children were circumcised as infants)

Jesus also makes it clear that little children are not to be with held. Check out the following verses:

Matthew 19:13-14
Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them; but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them;”

Luke 18:15-16
People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they sternly ordered them not to do it. But Jesus called for them and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them;

God touches us through baptism and we receive the remission of original sin and we receive the Holy Spirit. Even an infant can receive these things. as is evidenced by the following:

Luke 1 :15
The angel Gabriel says that John the Baptist , “even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

It is obvious from this account and Paul’s reference to passing through the Red Sea and baptism that the sacrament of baptism is for men, women, children, and infants. Moreover, scripture describes entire households that were baptized such as those of the Roman jailer, Lydia, and Stephanes. Scripture does not indicate that children were not included.

I hope this helps.

 

[Ignatius33]

Here are some arguments in favor of infant baptism.

As an initial matter, both sides would concede that the Bible is not crystal clear on this point – it does not explicitly state that infants can be baptized nor does it explicitly state that they cannot be baptized. Yet, the Catholic believes that the Bible strongly supports infant baptism. First, Catholics believe that the Bible firmly teaches the reality of original sin, i.e., the idea that Adam’s sin effected a permanent change in mankind’s relationship with God and that, as a result, all are born in a fallen state and need a Savior to redeem us (see 1 Cor. 15:21-22; Rom. 5:12-21; Eph. 2:3) (with one exception: Catholics believe that God accorded Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant who did not merely bear witness to the Word but literally bore the Word in her womb, a special grace, saving her at the outset of her life rather than later, by preserving her from the stain of original sin). Therefore, although an infant does not have any actual sins of his own, he is nevertheless born into the state of original sin, i.e., separation from God. Second, Catholics believe that Baptism is the initial gateway to the Christian life, freeing us from the bond of all sin (original, in the case of infants; original and actual, in the case of adults). Third, Christ’s law applies to all, infants and adults, and Jesus said that one must be born of water and the Spirit to enter heaven (John 3:5). Jesus repeatedly said: “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” (Lk. 18:16; see also Matt. 19:14; Mk. 10:14). Fourth, Paul observed that Baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). Inasmuch as circumcision was ordinarily administered to infants as a means of initiation into the Old Covenant, it is odd that Paul would make this parallel if he meant to exclude infants from initiation into the New Covenant. Indeed, since most of the first Christians were Jews, one would think that the Bible would make a point of prohibiting infant baptism if it was, in fact, wasted on them. On this point, if the early Church was called upon to determine whether circumcision was necessary for salvation (Acts 15), how much more likely would the early Church have been called upon to act if people had been denying infant baptism?

Finally, although the Bible does not explicitly reference infant baptism, this is not surprising since there were no “cradle Christians” yet. Nevertheless, a number of passages imply that children were in fact baptized (Acts 16:15 “She was baptized, with all her household”]; Acts 16:33 [stating that the jailor “was baptized then and there with all his household”]; 1 Cor. 1:16 [Paul observes that he “did baptize the family of Stephanas too”]). Relatedly, although most Evangelicals believe that infants go to heaven, they do not adequately explain how these infants are justified or restored to right relationship with God. Obviously, they have no saving faith of their own. Nor am I aware of any Bible passages explicitly dealing with the salvation of infants. The Catholic answer is simple: Baptism. This is not to say that the Church teaches that unbaptized children are destined for hell or a peaceful limbo. Rather, the Catechism of the Catholic Church observes that “the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ [Mk. 10:14], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” (CCC 1261). Some speculate that the Baptism by desire may come into play here as well, in that the members of the Church, Christ’s Body, corporeally desire salvation for the infant.

I’ll end with some quotations of the Church Fathers demonstrating that infant baptism is an ancient and legitimate (and apostolic) Christian practice.

1. St. Irenaeus clearly endorsed the practice:

“He came to save all through Himself – all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God – infants, and children, and youths and old men” (Against Heresies [ca. 180 AD]).

1. St. Hippolytus of Rome:

“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 [ca. 215 AD]).

1. Origen:

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin *, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans [post 244 AD]).

continued…*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Similarly, in a letter unanimously subscribed to by a council of 66 bishops, St. Cyprian of Carthage stated:

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: you said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and 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 judged that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born . . . Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision . . . we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death *” (Letter of Cyprian and of His Colleagues in Council: To Fidus [251/252 AD]).

1. St. Gregory Nazianzen:

“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 because of the weakness of nature? O what a pusillanimous mother, and of how little faith! . . . Give your child the Trinity, that great and noble Protector.” He further explained: “‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for Baptism; but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly, if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than depart unsealed and uninitiated” (Oration on Holy Baptism [381 AD]).

1. St. John Chrysostom:

“Behold, they thoroughly enjoy the peacefulness of freedom who shortly before were held captive. They are citizens of the Church who were wandering in error. They have their lot in righteousness who were in the confusion of sin. For not only are they free, but holy also; not only holy, but righteous too; not only righteous, but sons also; not only sons, but heirs as well; not only heirs, but brothers even of Christ; not only brothers of Christ, but also co-heirs; not only co-heirs, but His very members; not only His members, but a temple too; not a temple only, but likewise the instruments of the Spirit. 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. For this reason we baptize even infants, though they do not have sins [of their own]: so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be His members” (Baptismal Catecheses [ca. 388-389 AD]).

1. St. Ambrose:

“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’ [Jn. 3:5]. No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments *; but I do not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom” (Abraham [387 AD]).

1. St. Augustine, who greatly furthered the Church’s understanding of the stain of original sin and its consequences, had this to say:

“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 age of infancy also has a great weight of witness; for it was the infant age that fist merited to pour out its blood for Christ” [Matt. 2:16] (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis [inter 401-415 AD]).

1. Finally, St. Thomas Aquinas explained:

“Now children contract original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which passed upon all on account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same passage [Rom. 5:12]. Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said (John 3:5): ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam, so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ” (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 68, Art. 9 [1265-1274 AD]).

continued…***

 

[Ignatius33]

I’ve never seen an early Christian author deny the efficacy of infant baptism. The only author who speaks of it unfavorably is Tertullian, who rebelled against accepted practices in North Africa:

“According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary – if it be not a case of necessity – that the sponsors too be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the grown of an evil disposition? Indeed, the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’” [Mt. 10:14; Lk. 18:16] (Baptism [200/206 AD]).

But even Tertullian writes only that it “may” be better to delay Baptism; nowhere does he assert that infants “cannot” be baptized. Moreover, he mentions a child’s “sponsors,” indicating that the practice of infant baptism was already long-established inasmuch as these kinds of ceremonial developments don’t happen overnight. Finally, he also allows that infants should be baptized in “cases of necessity” – presumably referring to instances in which their lives were in danger due to sickness.

In short, if the Apostles truly were opposed to infant baptism, as many modern Evangelicals assume, it seems odd that no early Christian writings confirm this position or rebuke the Catholic one (shared by all non-Protestant Christians). Stated differently, if infant baptism were an unapostolic innovation (as Baptists must believe), how is it possible that not a single early Christian author voiced dissent to the practice? Rather, it wasn’t until the 16th century that some Protestant groups rejected the practice. That is not very persuasive in my opinion.

Hope that is helpful.

 

[Mintaka]

If babies aren’t part of “all peoples” or “all nations”, what are they? Chopped liver? I don’t think most people will argue that babies and other non-adults are not humans.

Of course, this line of argument will probably lead to someone mentioning “go forth and multiply” as a commandment directed only toward adults. But babies are physically incapable of multiplying, whereas it’s pretty clear that babies are physically capable of being baptized, and that disciples are physically capable of baptizing them. So I don’t think that’s a valid argument against it.

 

[windlessuser]

Thankx for all the responses guy. I really think i need to sit down and do more research. Life is hard in an anti-catholic country and being an apologetic in training