Arguments for infant baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chuck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was just wondering if any one can come up with arguments for infant baptism?
  1. Infant Baptism in not in the Scriptures.
  2. Those in the Bible who we see being baptized are all baptized after hearing and publicly professing belief in the gospel.
  3. Baptism is never referred to as a replacement sign for circumcision. In fact, the two are never compared at all in the Scriptures. (If baptism replaced circumcision, why did the Council at Jerusalem fail to tell the Gentiles that they did not need to circumcize BECAUSE circumcision was now replaced by baptism?)
  4. The New Covenant is comprised of the elect only. (Jer 31:31-34; 1 John 2:20; Hebrews 8) Why would we give the covenant sign to one who is not in the covenant? We are not in the New Covenant until we are saved.
  5. Infant Baptism, and Full Covenant Theology, denies the doctrine of Unconditional Election. God does not elect you based on who your parents are and what they believe.
  6. Infant Baptism denies Limited Atonement, too. The New Covenant is a Covenant in Christ’s blood. For whom did He die and shed His blood? The elect. To say one who is not elect and not atoned for is in the covenant of His blood means Jesus died for all men and those excluded are excluded by their choice or by their failure to “take advantage” of the atonement, potentially made for them.
  7. Infant Baptism denies the regenerate nature of the church by purposefully including some non-elect in the membership of the church. One is a sheep or a goat. Goats are not members of the herd! (1 John 2:19; Matthew 7:21-23)
  8. Baptism is a public profession of personal faith in Christ, signifying the reality of being born again. Can an infant profess faith?
  9. If God promises that the children of believers are in covenant with Him, why then are there some children of believers who are never saved?
  10. As Jesus is the only Mediator between God and men, what is His role as Mediator in the New Covenant? Part of that role as mediator is that He intercedes for Covenant Members. Jesus does not pray for the world, but only for the elect. (John 17:9).
Not attacking just asking , thanks
The Acts of the Apostlea, within Holy Scripture, tells us that a man named Cornelius and all of his household were baptized. Our Lord Jesus Christ tells us: “Let the little children come unto Me - for of such is the kingdom og heaven.” Both Scripture AND Tradition (that’s the totality of our faith) tell us “Baptize children!”

Protestant teachings might include Scripture
  • but NOT Catholic tradition.
 
Scott Hahn has an excellent talk on Infant Baptism in this mp3 series. It’s probably the most comprehensive answer on the subject I’ve ever heard.
 
Infant Baptism
Gen. 17:12, 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.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says 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.

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.”

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.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that “teknon” includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a “believer’s baptism” requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household (“oikos”) of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith.

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. This is another example of healing based on another’s faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith.

1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.

Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.

Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.
SHalom
God Bless
 
But isnt it wrong to Accept the holy spirit for someone alse ?
The holy spirit is sommthing you has to accept for yourself and babies can’t do that?
??? And if baptisim for infants was caused by the converted king that would be mans error ? Not attacking just asking
The parents of the infant being baptized make a baptismal promise as do the godparents that they will bring up the child in the faith and teach the child about God.

Jesus was the one who taught us about infant baptism when Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
 
*Some Christians believe people should only be baptised when they are old enough to understand what they are doing and make the choice to follow Jesus for themselves ?
Our relationship with Jesus is a process.

Once an infant is baptized, because we are saved through our baptism and if a baby dies, as Catholics we want to make sure that our babies will go to be with Jesus in Heaven. So what usually happens or what is suppose to happen after an infant baptism is the parents being the child’s first teacher are suppose to uphold their baptismal promise to teach the child about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and teach the child how to pray and hopefully, the child is brought to Church on Sunday and learns another dimension in our relationship with God listening to God’s Word, singing praises to God and hymns, etc.

Once the child is in 1st grade they enter formal religious education instructions and prepare to make their 1st Holy Communion in 2nd grade where they do receive Jesus in the special Sacrament of The Eucharist. Formal education is continued and hopefully attending Mass weekly and receiving Jesus in The Blessed Sacrament at Mass and in 9th grade these children now make their Confirmation where they receive The Holy Spirit and His generous gifts throught the laying on of hands by the Bishop.

Here’s a link to an article about Infant Baptism that was very good. Its getting late, would love to write more, hopefully another time as infant baptism is dear to my heart.

catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

Peace.
 
I was just wondering if any one can come up with arguments for infant baptism?
  1. Infant Baptism in not in the Scriptures.
There are mentions of whole households being baptised. Why wouldn’t there be children?
  1. Those in the Bible who we see being baptized are all baptized after hearing and publicly professing belief in the gospel.
Of course, that’s the first generation converts. Babies don’t apply for baptism when their parents are pagan.
  1. Baptism is never referred to as a replacement sign for circumcision. In fact, the two are never compared at all in the Scriptures. (If baptism replaced circumcision, why did the Council at Jerusalem fail to tell the Gentiles that they did not need to circumcize BECAUSE circumcision was now replaced by baptism?)
From the earliest time it was seen as a replacement, see Cyprian’s epistle on child baptism. for infant baptism. Baptism is called spiritual circumcision there.
  1. The New Covenant is comprised of the elect only. (Jer 31:31-34; 1 John 2:20; Hebrews 8) Why would we give the covenant sign to one who is not in the covenant? We are not in the New Covenant until we are saved.
But one who is baptised is in the Church, and the Church is the new Ark of Noah, outside of which there is no salvation.
  1. Infant Baptism, and Full Covenant Theology, denies the doctrine of Unconditional Election. God does not elect you based on who your parents are and what they believe.
But the doctrine of Unconditional Election is heretical to the core.
  1. Infant Baptism denies Limited Atonement, too. The New Covenant is a Covenant in Christ’s blood. For whom did He die and shed His blood? The elect. To say one who is not elect and not atoned for is in the covenant of His blood means Jesus died for all men and those excluded are excluded by their choice or by their failure to “take advantage” of the atonement, potentially made for them
But limited atonement is heresy. Christ died for all who accept salvation.
  1. Infant Baptism denies the regenerate nature of the church by purposefully including some non-elect in the membership of the church. One is a sheep or a goat. Goats are not members of the herd! (1 John 2:19; Matthew 7:21-23)
See answer 4. You are one of Christ’s people through baptism.
  1. Baptism is a public profession of personal faith in Christ, signifying the reality of being born again. Can an infant profess faith?
Baptism is a sacrament, in which all prior sins are forgiven, and through baptism we are being born again. Baptism *is *the ‘reality of being born again’.
  1. If God promises that the children of believers are in covenant with Him, why then are there some children of believers who are never saved?
Because there is a little thing called free will.

Hope this helps 👍
 
I have so much to learn. As I meditate on the Mysteries of the Rosary, I’m wondering if Jesus isn’t fulfilling the OT, when Mary and Joseph presented Jesus to the Lord, "(When the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law) with the NT, when he’s baptized in the Jordan. (When John tried to deter him Jesus replied, It is proper to do this to fulfill all righteousness) So in a sense, John the Baptist is to the NT as Simeon is to the OT. Or am I way off base here?
 
I have so much to learn. As I meditate on the Mysteries of the Rosary, I’m wondering if Jesus isn’t fulfilling the OT, when Mary and Joseph presented Jesus to the Lord, "(When the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law) with the NT, when he’s baptized in the Jordan. (When John tried to deter him Jesus replied, It is proper to do this to fulfill all righteousness) So in a sense, John the Baptist is to the NT as Simeon is to the OT. Or am I way off base here?
We all have much to learn. Maybe post this quesiton in the Sacred Scripture forum.
 
  1. Baptism is never referred to as a replacement sign for circumcision. In fact, the two are never compared at all in the Scriptures. (If baptism replaced circumcision, why did the Council at Jerusalem fail to tell the Gentiles that they did not need to circumcize BECAUSE circumcision was now replaced by baptism?)
Hmmmmm, me thinks that is not entirely true…
Colossians 2:11-12:
“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by** the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism**”
Also, see this article:

INFANT BAPTISM
 
This picture was taken by a photographer who had promised the mother of the child he would give her a copy as she could not afford a picture.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZzZNqiXFptY/TF2v8XNKmuI/AAAAAAAAABI/sdLifPapmfg/s1600/baptizzed.jpg

deepertruthblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/baptism-tribute-to-my-mother.html
This is a remarkable picture. I believe that God speaks to us not only through the people we meet in our daily walk but in things; He shows us signs of His love for us. For example, I notice at the end of the water that is poured from the shell it forms a cross at the end. The indelible mark of our Baptism in Christ.
 
This is a remarkable picture. I believe that God speaks to us not only through the people we meet in our daily walk but in things; He shows us signs of His love for us. For example, I notice at the end of the water that is poured from the shell it forms a cross at the end. The indelible mark of our Baptism in Christ.
In other words, who cares how old we are when we are Baptized into Christ. . .Just Praise God that we are!
 
I think this thread belongs in Apologetics, and it will probably be moved there. But in the meantime . . .

Infant baptism has everything to do with original sin. As far as I know, only the Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of original sin. This doctrine tells us that because of the fall of our original parents, who chose to disobey God and were thrown out of the Garden, we as their progeny inherit their sin. We are all born completely separated from God and destined for hell. We belong to Satan at the time of our birth. That is why Christ is called our Redeemer - His Sacrifice on the Cross pays for and redeems us from sin, death and Satan.

Babies, of course, have no sin of their own, but they do have original sin and are, therefore, completely cut off from God. Therefore, in order to bring them into the family of God, they are baptized. All of the arguments you stated completely disregard the dogma of original sin and the need to be redeemed even as infants. That is why Protestants cannot understand infant baptism. Infant baptism has nothing to do with repentance - babies have nothing to repent of. Because babies cannot speak for themselves, they have sponsors who speak for them and renounce Satan and his works and accept the saving Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Infant baptism is God’s mercy for the personally innocent ones who cannot speak for themselves.

All of the arguments you posted show a lack of understanding and belief that we are all born with original sin. If you understand original sin, you will have no problem with infant baptism and in fact, will thank God for it.

I think it is a sad sign of our times that so many Catholic parents now will delay baptizing their babies until they can get the whole family together and have a big party. It shows that they do not understand the urgent importance of redeeming their children from Satan and bringing them into the Family of God.
Just for clarification, Lutherans do teach original sin.
Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.
3] They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ’s merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.
Now there are some disagreements between us about the nature of concupiscence. The link shows the Augsburg Confession, the Catholic confutation, and the Apology.

bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article2

other than this and your statement that protestants do not understand infant baptism (we and many others do baptize infants), I generally agree.

Jon
 
It’s really not that hard to understand. In the Old Covenant infant boys were brought into God’s covenant eight days after being born at circumcision . Obviously these infants were not aware they were being brought into God’s covenant. But Paul himself states that baptism in the New Covenant is the new circumcision.
 
I was just wondering if any one can come up with arguments for infant baptism?
  1. Infant Baptism in not in the Scriptures.
  2. Those in the Bible who we see being baptized are all baptized after hearing and publicly professing belief in the gospel.
  3. Baptism is never referred to as a replacement sign for circumcision. In fact, the two are never compared at all in the Scriptures. (If baptism replaced circumcision, why did the Council at Jerusalem fail to tell the Gentiles that they did not need to circumcize BECAUSE circumcision was now replaced by baptism?)
  4. The New Covenant is comprised of the elect only. (Jer 31:31-34; 1 John 2:20; Hebrews 8) Why would we give the covenant sign to one who is not in the covenant? We are not in the New Covenant until we are saved.
  5. Infant Baptism, and Full Covenant Theology, denies the doctrine of Unconditional Election. God does not elect you based on who your parents are and what they believe.
  6. Infant Baptism denies Limited Atonement, too. The New Covenant is a Covenant in Christ’s blood. For whom did He die and shed His blood? The elect. To say one who is not elect and not atoned for is in the covenant of His blood means Jesus died for all men and those excluded are excluded by their choice or by their failure to “take advantage” of the atonement, potentially made for them.
  7. Infant Baptism denies the regenerate nature of the church by purposefully including some non-elect in the membership of the church. One is a sheep or a goat. Goats are not members of the herd! (1 John 2:19; Matthew 7:21-23)
  8. Baptism is a public profession of personal faith in Christ, signifying the reality of being born again. Can an infant profess faith?
  9. If God promises that the children of believers are in covenant with Him, why then are there some children of believers who are never saved?
  10. As Jesus is the only Mediator between God and men, what is His role as Mediator in the New Covenant? Part of that role as mediator is that He intercedes for Covenant Members. Jesus does not pray for the world, but only for the elect. (John 17:9).
Not attacking just asking , thanks
The Council of Carthage in 418 declared:
“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my house there are many mansions’: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ?" (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).
Now, the Council, which was confirmed by Pope Zosimus, did not specify the “sacrament of Baptism” vis-a-vis the “grace of Baptism,” but since the former always contains the latter, it is best that infants be sacramentally baptized shortly after birth. Many on this board (and elsewhere) like to presume the latter, but such is theological opinion and has never been taught definitively by the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top