Baptism, non-essential!

[fellowChristian]

Christ Calls All to Baptism

Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists (“re-baptizers”) echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).

Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are we to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them?

Infant Baptism

More on what the Catholic Church teaches

catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp

 

[fellowChristian]

In Place of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

 

[fellowChristian]

Were Only Adults Baptized?

Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no “cradle Christians,” people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

 

[fellowChristian]

Specific Biblical References?

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

 

[fellowChristian]

Catholics From the First

The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

 

[fellowChristian]

No Cry of “Invention!”

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants”; it simply says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.” Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

 

[malachi_a_serva]

According to your theology,

If Faith is necessary for salvation, then all babies go to hell, otherwise faith is not necessary. IT IS that simple.

Peace!

You raise a good point - but the answer is, yes. Without faith you cannot receive God’s grace. Without God’s grace - no heaven. no heaven = go to Hell.

However, in the eternal lake of fire there is degrees of punishment. Hence, baby would not experience the same as Judas. Yes Judas went to Hell. Scripture says so.

By the way, I must add that everyone participating in this thread has done a wonderful job. I have never enjoyed such a thread as this. Congrats to all/…most I don’t count.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Infants can be regenerate with the Holy spirit! (baptized in the spirit)
One need not look any further than John the baptist in his mothers womb or Jeremiah, or Abraham whom God called on as a babe.
These infants are part of God’s elect in the Lambs book of life.

Better answer yet… I think I will change mine to this one

Nah…I think I will stick with my original response.

No Faith = No Heaven

No Heaven = Hell.

 

[savedsinner]

The devil hopes people rely on their own works, ie baptism for salvation, he knows that Christ’s blood is the “Gospel”…

We are not relying on our own works, but Jesus is giving us the supernatural power that is required to become children of God.
Let’s go to John, and I will explain it to you.
(this explaination is from Scott Hahn’s “Our Fathers Plan”)

John 1:11-13
He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, **who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God. **
Here St. John writes that Jesus gives “power” to those who believes in him to become children of God. We will see that this power is the Holy Spirit which we receive in “baptism”

John 2:23-25
While he was in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, **many began to believe in his name **when they saw the signs he was doing. **But Jesus would not trust himself to them **because he knew them all, and did not need anyone to testify about human nature. He himself understood it well
Here St. John writes that people began to believe in Jesus because of the signs, but Jesus did not trust himself to them because they only believed with natural human knowledge, in other words, believing by itself is not enough. We need a supernatural belief to become children of God
Jesus is going to explain how we receive this supernatural belief which is required when St. John introduces Nicodemus an example of how this is to be done.

John 3:1-5
Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode’mus, a ruler of the Jews.This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.”
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicode’mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Here John explains that we have to be baptized so we can receive that supernatural belief with supernatural power from the Holy Spirit that is required to become Children of God, and with that supernatural belief, Jesus will trust himself to us. We know that it is baptism with water and spirit that Jesus is speaking of because in Chapter 1 when St. John is baptizing the gospel speaks of both spirit and water, and from that point forwards, Water and Spirit will always be tied together in baptism. Jesus is saying the same thing in two different ways, first you must be born again, or from above, and second you must be born of water and the spirit. It is the same thing, worded differently. He is talking about being born again thru baptism.

John 1:32-33
John testified further, saying, "I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from the sky and remain upon him. I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit

John 3:22-23
After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing. John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was an abundance of water there, and people came to be baptized,

Before the discourse with Nicodemus, John is baptizing. And right after his conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus is Baptizing with his disciples, the only place that it is mentioned that Jesus was himself present with his disciples when they were baptizing. The whole Nicodemus passage is sandwiched between references to baptism. John’s Gospel is very symbolic, that is he writes themes in his writings, and here the theme is baptism. Just like the bread of like discourse is a ‘passover’ theme.

 

[guanophore]

The apostles taught the same thing you read in scripture… Your church adds to this, that is not apostolic teaching.

It is scriptural, Simon. You just don’t appreciate the power to bind and loose. The Apostles, keepers of the Sacred Tradition, have complete authority to add to the scripture. However, in this case, we see all the evidence we need for the salvific nature of baptism.

You have asserted that Baptism is not necessary, and that Paul seemed to have no interest in it. I am curious about your thoughts of this passage:

Acts 19:1-7
And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

So they said to him,“We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”

So they said,“Into John’s baptism.”

4 Then Paul said,“John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.

Clearly they were believers/disciples. They were repentant (received John’s baptism).

Why did Paul feel it necessary to baptize them in the name of the Lord Jesus?

This passage represents the model upon which the modern rite of baptism is based. A believer is questioned about his faith, then he is baptised with water, then annointed with oil and hands laid upon them, invoking the HS. I must confess, they candidates don’t burst out in tongues and prophesy as often as I would like to see it, but the rite has not changed since the NT times.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

It is scriptural, Simon. You just don’t appreciate the power to bind and loose. The Apostles, keepers of the Sacred Tradition, have complete authority to add to the scripture. However, in this case, we see all the evidence we need for the salvific nature of baptism.

You have asserted that Baptism is not necessary, and that Paul seemed to have no interest in it. I am curious about your thoughts of this passage:

Acts 19:1-7
And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

So they said to him,“We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”

So they said,“Into John’s baptism.”

4 Then Paul said,“John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.

Clearly they were believers/disciples. They were repentant (received John’s baptism).

Why did Paul feel it necessary to baptize them in the name of the Lord Jesus?

This passage represents the model upon which the modern rite of baptism is based. A believer is questioned about his faith, then he is baptised with water, then annointed with oil and hands laid upon them, invoking the HS. I must confess, they candidates don’t burst out in tongues and prophesy as often as I would like to see it, but the rite has not changed since the NT times.

I am following along so far… Now also in Acts are those that receive the Holy Ghost PRIOR to Baptism. Would you say that could happen today? Why did it happen then? Was it an exception?

Thanks and I look forward to your response.

 

[guanophore]

I am following along so far… Now also in Acts are those that receive the Holy Ghost PRIOR to Baptism. Would you say that could happen today? Why did it happen then? Was it an exception?

Thanks and I look forward to your response.

It does happen today, especially in protestant ecclesiastical communities. Many of these people are like the discples in Ephesus, and are fervently faithful to the amount of revelation they have received, although it is incomplete.

I think it happened at the house of Cornelius so that God could convince Peter that He intended for Gentiles to become part of the Kingdom.

However it happens first, water, or spirit, the two are intended to go together.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So if infants can be saved without faith, then that is an exception to the normative way - particularly according to Protestantism - of salvation through faith. The same way this exception to the norm (i.e. faith) does not make faith unnecessary in general, exceptions to the norm of baptism does not make baptism unnecessary.

God Bless,
Michael

No offense my friend but you grossly misunderstand the concept of faith alone.

 

[RobNY]

No offense my friend but you grossly misunderstand the concept of faith alone.

You’ve said that faith is not necessary for infants. You’ve said both that 1. infants can be regenerate. 2. infants cannot have faith. The only conclusion one can draw from this is 3. faith is not necessary for regeneration.

This is just about the same reasoning you’ve been trying to use against us. Quite honestly, I’m just going to ask you to do some serious introspection as regards this issue. This is really a, ‘remove the speck in your eye’ thing here, because you’re trying to accuse us on grounds which you yourself cannot avoid.

-Rob

 

[VociMike]

Just my two cents …
Perhaps Jesus is clarifing that pre-birth embryos do not get to God’s kingdom. Not too far fetched.

Yes, that’s it. When asked how can one be saved, Jesus makes it a point to first clarify that pre-birth embryos can’t be. That’s cutting right to the heart of the matter.

BTW, why should God not want pre-birth embryos in heaven? Are they not human beings? Does this make abortion OK after all?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

You’ve said that faith is not necessary for infants.

I said faith is not possible for infants

You’ve said both that 1. infants can be regenerate.

Yes! As I mentioned; John the Baptist, Jeremiah, and Abraham are examples of God’s character and justice in this regard

1. infants cannot have faith.

Correct!

The only conclusion one can draw from this is 3. faith is not necessary for regeneration.

The Holy Spirit and God’s grace is all that is required for regeneration…So in a sense you are right, at least from an infant POV.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

from Tertullian
“[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’” (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

Tertullian goes on to say in 20…That those who are to be baptized should…

** “pray with repeated prayers, fasts, and bendings of the knee, and vigils all the night through, and with the confession of all by gone sins” **

My son would have really struggled doing this at 4 weeks of age…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

from Second Clement
"For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey his commandments. . . . [W]ith what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?’ (Second Clement 6:7–9 [A.D. 150]).

Clement, wrote that we’re saved through faith, apart from works. He excludes all works, even
"works that we have done in holiness of heart" (First Clement, 32).

 

[reunify]

Tertullian goes on to say in 20…That those who are to be baptized should…

** “pray with repeated prayers, fasts, and bendings of the knee, and vigils all the night through, and with the confession of all by gone sins” **

My son would have really struggled doing this at 4 weeks of age…

no but your son will be doing it through his Christian walk of life, in which baptism is the start of… why deny your son this great gift?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

no but your son will be doing it through his Christian walk of life, in which baptism is the start of… why deny your son this great gift?

The chronological order of things is 1.) BELIEVE 2.) be Baptized.

The action of pouring water over an infant does no more toward eternal salvation than taking a shower does. God’s grace is the only thing that saves an undiscerning infant.