Arguments for infant baptism

[Chuck1]

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

 

[Pug]

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?)

(I added red for emphasis, both in your quote and in scripture)

Colossians 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 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. 13 And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses,

 

[Chuck1]

Thanks for post but I also herd infant baptdit also came about when a king ( I can’t remember his name) became a chrisitian and ordered everyone no matter what religion they where to baptise everyone including infants.

 

[Brooklyn]

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.

 

[tabycat]

Paul, in his Letters, compares baptism to circumcision, since circumcision was proformed when the baby was eight days old; therefor, since Paul’s Letters are in the New Testament, infent baptism is Biblecal. During the first centures, the only quistion that I’ve heard of age, was if a baby could be baptismed before the eighth day. To say that infent baptism is not Biblacal, you would have to proove that where it is said that whole households were baptised that there were no children under what ever age you pick.

 

[Chuck1]

Thanks for your posts , I think I kinda get it but also the church of England or Anglican babies and I was told that infant baptism came about when a king ( I can’t remember his name) became a chrisitian and ordered everyone no matter what religion they where to baptise everyone including infants ?

 

[runningdude]

Catholic teaching is that all life is sacred. Why shouldn’t a sacred little baby be baptized?

 

[Chuck1]

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

 

[Chuck1]

*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 ?

 

[Brooklyn]

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

I guess you didn’t understand my post. Babies are born with original sin - through no fault of their own, but because of the sin of our first parents, babies are born completely cut off from God. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church has made it possible to redeem the babies from Satan and bring them into the Church. There is no way a baby can understand he is cut off from God, and so there is no way for him to accept the Holy Spirit on his own. That is where his god parents come in.

I don’t know anything about a converted king instituting infant baptism. That is certainly not part of Catholic Church teaching.

 

[tabycat]

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

If I had to choose between Saint Paul in his Letters {the Bible) saying, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, that Bapistism is the (for Christians) new Circumcisiom (witch was done eight days after birth). One tiny little question: Was the Holy Spirit right (through Paul’s Letters) wrong back then?

 

[sw85]

Well, for a Catholic, the best argument is that the Church has said that baptism is necessary for salvation, and sufficient for salvation of infants, and that it should be done as quickly after birth as possible.

But isnt it wrong to Accept the holy spirit for someone alse ?

Baptism isn’t primarily about accepting the holy spirit. It’s about washing away the stain of original sin.

The holy spirit is sommthing you has to accept for yourself and babies can’t do that?

That’s exactly why they need someone to baptize them, being unable to achieve salvation by any other means (e.g., desire).

??? And if baptisim for infants was caused by the converted king that would be mans error ? Not attacking just asking

I don’t know what it is you’re referring to (possibly Emperor Constantine?), but even if it was first instituted by a king, so what? Can God not work through kings?

You seem to be operating under the idea that the early Church had everything right and later generations screwed it up. This is a basically Protestant idea and a very dangerous one you should avoid. The early Church labored under many mistaken beliefs, including Arianism (which people forget was a majority belief in some areas of the empire). The Holy Spirit did not give us everything we need to know all at once, but has revealed knowledge to us gradually and over the course of centuries.

*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 ?

Those people aren’t Catholics. Why should we concern ourselves with what they think?

 

[TeenageConvert]

We have a very different belief about Baptism then the do. (most) protestants beleive that Baptism is not a Sacrament in the Catholic sense. The think it’s an outward sign of something that has already happened.

 

[aicirt]

I didn’t read all the posts but what happened to baptism removing original sin?

 

[Brooklyn]

I didn’t read all the posts but what happened to baptism removing original sin?

You sure didn’t read all the posts. That is what my post was all about. Go and take a look.

 

[aicirt]

You sure didn’t read all the posts. That is what my post was all about. Go and take a look.

Well I SURE DID NOW!! Calm down. :imsorry: It wouldn’t happen again.

Like you, I too don’t get waiting months, if not years, to baptize a baby. Use to be the child was baptized as quickly as possible…two weeks to a month after the birth.

 

[brumano]

I was just wondering if any one can come up with arguments for infant baptism?

1. Those in the Bible who we see being baptized are all baptized after hearing and publicly professing belief in the gospel

 

[Rhuarc]

Well if the infant died (s)he would still have the stain of original sin. The Church doesn’t know where they would go, so it is better safe than sorry.

 

[aicirt]

Well if the infant died (s)he would still have the stain of original sin. The Church doesn’t know where they would go, so it is better safe than sorry.

Why wouldn’t baptism of desire be appropriate when an infant dies? Personally, I think that is exactly what happens.

 

[sllhouette]

1. Infant Baptism in not in the Scriptures.

Actually it is. Acts 16:15 and 1 Cor. 1:16 Apparently the word for ‘household’ implies the presence of children in greek. Also, I would point to Mark 10:14

1. Those in the Bible who we see being baptized are all baptized after hearing and publicly professing belief in the gospel.

Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” This implies that one can be baptized and yet not believe. Yes it is important that when the sacrament is administered that the one being baptized believes or will be raised in the Catholic faith, but God’s grace is not dependent upon our worthiness.

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?)

Colossians 2:11

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.

Infants are included in the New Covenant.

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 not about something that you are doing, it is about something that God is doing. Baptism Is God pouring his grace upon you and cleansing you of original sin. Can an infant receive Grace?

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 they turn away from God. They reject salvation of their own free will.

1. 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).

Are you saying that Christ doesn’t care about babies and that all children who are not yet capable of believing are condemned to hell for not doing so? That makes no sense to me. Of course Christ was praying for the children in the Church.

I was going to answer all of your questions, but it seems to me that we are coming from two different perspectives. I would suggest you read “first comes love” and “A Father Who Keeps His Promises” By Scott Hahn. He was a protestant minister who converted to Catholicism . He writes quite well and is incredibly well informed.