Baptism of babies & infants

[placido]

What are the most common non-Catholic objections to the baptism of infants?

 

[Eleve]

The most prominent objection I have seen is based on Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” From this, advocates of believer’s baptism understand Jesus to mean that belief in Christ must precede baptism for the sacrament to be valid.

 

[placido]

The most prominent objection I have seen is based on Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” From this, advocates of believer’s baptism understand Jesus to mean that belief in Christ must precede baptism for the sacrament to be valid.

Thank you for the response. While in Mark 16:16 one is taught to believe before baptism, in Matthew 28:19-20 baptism seems to come first. Meaning, adults can be taught first and baptised later, while babies and infants can be baptised first to be taught later.

placido

 

[promethius]

The most prominent objection I have seen is based on Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” From this, advocates of believer’s baptism understand Jesus to mean that belief in Christ must precede baptism for the sacrament to be valid.

It would seem to me that if there was a timeline involved here that it would say “he who believes AND THEN is baptized will be saved.” Instead it does not say this. Let’s look at it this way: He who has A and B is Saved; but if he does not have A, he is not Saved. This is not to say that A must come first, or that just having A (but not B) means you will be saved. Instead you could almost consider this an argument FOR infant baptism: the infant who is baptised and yet comes to reject belief is condemned.

 

[placido]

It would seem to me that if there was a timeline involved here that it would say “he who believes AND THEN is baptized will be saved.” Instead it does not say this. Let’s look at it this way: He who has A and B is Saved; but if he does not have A, he is not Saved. This is not to say that A must come first, or that just having A (but not B) means you will be saved. Instead you could almost consider this an argument FOR infant baptism: the infant who is baptised and yet comes to reject belief is condemned.

Thank you very much for this new insight!

placido

 

[placido]

Any objection to the baptism of babies and infants based on Mark 16:16 alone is unjustified. If the “he who” in the 2nd half of the verse excludes babies and infants, then the “he who” in the 1st half excludes babies and infants. If babies and infants are not condemned because of lack of belief, they should not be denied baptism because of lack of belief.

placido

 

[TheQuestioner]

It would seem to me that if there was a timeline involved here that it would say “he who believes AND THEN is baptized will be saved.” Instead it does not say this. Let’s look at it this way: He who has A and B is Saved; but if he does not have A, he is not Saved. This is not to say that A must come first, or that just having A (but not B) means you will be saved. Instead you could almost consider this an argument FOR infant baptism: the infant who is baptised and yet comes to reject belief is condemned.

Ditto

 

[bpbasilphx]

In Acts 2, St. Peter said, “Repent and be baptized in the Name of Jesus, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, for this promise is to you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN.”

In 1 Cor 10, there is a prophecy not only of infant baptism, but of infant communion.

 

[seek]

Maybe some one can help me on this. I seem to remember reading somewhere
that in Judaic belief, when the head of the household was brought into the faith, the entire household -servants and children included- were brought into the faith. I’ve always looked
to that as a hint as to the validity of infant Baptism. The other aspect of this argument that has always struck me is- God will grant his Grace to whomever he wants to grant
grace. After all we are his creation and who are we to tell him how to grant HIS gift

 

[ParkerD]

In Acts 2, St. Peter said, “Repent and be baptized in the Name of Jesus, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, for this promise is to you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN.”

In 1 Cor 10, there is a prophecy not only of infant baptism, but of infant communion.

Hi, bpbasilphx,
Acts 2:38-39 says,
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Could you be more specific with regard to your citation about “a prophecy” in 1 Corinthians? Thanks.

 

[placido]

Hi, bpbasilphx,
Acts 2:38-39 says,
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

1. Baptism is for “as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:38-39);
2. Even infant children were called (Luke 18:15);
   CONCLUSION: The objection to the baptism of babies and infants is wrong.

placido

 

[promethius]

Maybe some one can help me on this. I seem to remember reading somewhere
that in Judaic belief, when the head of the household was brought into the faith, the entire household -servants and children included- were brought into the faith. I’ve always looked
to that as a hint as to the validity of infant Baptism. The other aspect of this argument that has always struck me is- God will grant his Grace to whomever he wants to grant
grace. After all we are his creation and who are we to tell him how to grant HIS gift

That’s not quite accurate. For jerusalem it was, but various areas had different issues. In the spread of early catholicism in rome, the typical pattern was that the woman of the household converted first, or that the woman had even converted before marraige and the man was required to convert to marry her (or at least to raise the children catholic).

This pattern was a reversal of custom before, however, because pagan rome treated women terribly, forcing them into dangerous abortions and basically confining them to households while their husbands went out to foray with the local women (or, in many cases, men). As a result of this sexual discrimination, the church offered a means of equality for women by which both were held in equal regard (as it pertains to sexuality and reproductive rights, that is). This caused women to convert, until the pagan men had a disproportionately few number of pagan women left to cavort with and (eventually) to be forced to marry. Many of these pagan women would end up barren as a result of the forced abortions or mistreatment, so that put the societal reproductive pressure towards the direction of Christianity… but yes, it was considered that whether or not the whole household converted, if one of the parents was catholic and the other pagan then the deal was that the children would be raised catholic… including infant baptism and going to church with the catholic parent.

 

[ParkerD]

1. Baptism is for “as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:38-39);
2. Even infant children were called (Luke 18:15);
   CONCLUSION: The objection to the baptism of babies and infants is wrong.

placido

Hi, Placido,
I suppose one could say that infant children were being “called” by being brought to the Savior to be blessed by Him or “touched” by Him, but are you saying you think He baptized them?

Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

 

[placido]

Hi, Placido,
I suppose one could say that infant children were being “called” by being brought to the Savior to be blessed by Him or “touched” by Him, but are you saying you think He baptized them?

Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

I know He did not baptize them but the fact remains: baptism is for ALL whom the Lord CALLED. Now, were children called or not?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

I know He did not baptize them but the fact remains: baptism is for ALL whom the Lord CALLED. Now, were children called or not?

placido

Placido,
The apostles didn’t act like the infants had been “called.” They didn’t act like Jesus needed to baptize them. They didn’t act like they had been asked by Jesus to baptize infants.

You can make the word “called” mean anyone you want it to mean and make it replace the word “touch” but that is a private interpretation you have brought to the scripture.

 

[promethius]

The apostles didn’t act like the infants had been “called.” They didn’t act like Jesus needed to baptize them. They didn’t act like they had been asked by Jesus to baptize infants.

And yet they baptised entire households and families. Sure looks to me like infant baptism.

The point remains: initial entrance to the old covenant was by circumcision. Paul called baptism the initial impartation of grace to the new covenant. If the prior could apply to infants, why not the latter??? or has it become chic for humans to limit God by saying He can’t baptise with grace whoever he chooses.

 

[ParkerD]

And yet they baptised entire households and families. Sure looks to me like infant baptism.

The point remains: initial entrance to the old covenant was by circumcision. Paul called baptism the initial impartation of grace to the new covenant. If the prior could apply to infants, why not the latter??? or has it become chic for humans to limit God by saying He can’t baptise with grace whoever he chooses.

Promethius,
If infant baptism were expected and taught, then why did the apostles “rebuke” those who were bringing the infants to Christ? Of course they would not have rebuked them. They would have said, “bring them and we will baptize them.”

Here is the verse in Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

You have made the assumption that every household must have infants in the household. Why do you make that assumption (other than to prove that the apostles must have changed their mind about the need to baptize infants)? I don’t think the apostles changed their mind, or that Jesus changed His mind on the subject.

 

[promethius]

Promethius,
If infant baptism were expected and taught, then why did the apostles “rebuke” those who were bringing the infants to Christ? Of course they would not have rebuked them. They would have said, “bring them and we will baptize them.”

Here is the verse in Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

why do you ignore the fact that Christ in turn told His disciples that they were wrong to do so? I mean, honestly, the verses RIGHT AFTER what you quote directly contradict what you just implied.

You have made the assumption that every household must have infants in the household. Why do you make that assumption (other than to prove that the apostles must have changed their mind about the need to baptize infants)? I don’t think the apostles changed their mind, or that Jesus changed His mind on the subject.

I don’t make the assumption that “every” household must have had infants in it. I make the assumption that of the households mentioned, that they were not all barren houses and that at least one had a child. That is not a far supposition to make. Further, I didn’t say Jesus changed His mind on the subject… conversely, Jesus rebuked the disciples and changed THEIR minds on the subject of whether or not to bring the children to Him

 

[ParkerD]

why do you ignore the fact that Christ in turn told His disciples that they were wrong to do so? I mean, honestly, the verses RIGHT AFTER what you quote directly contradict what you just implied.

I don’t make the assumption that “every” household must have had infants in it. I make the assumption that of the households mentioned, that they were not all barren houses and that at least one had a child. That is not a far supposition to make. Further, I didn’t say Jesus changed His mind on the subject… conversely, Jesus rebuked the disciples and changed THEIR minds on the subject of whether or not to bring the children to Him

Promethius,
“A child” does not mean “an infant.” Are you saying that my household, which has six children living there right now, is “barren” because none of them is an infant?

Are you saying that Jesus began teaching about infant baptism at that moment, but up until that time He had remained silent about the subject? Why would He not have (knowing all things ahead of time) already taught the disciples about the need to baptize infants? They certainly would not have rebuked anyone who brought an infant to the Savior for baptism if He had been teaching the principle.

 

[promethius]

Promethius,
“A child” does not mean “an infant.” Are you saying that my household, which has six children living there right now, is “barren” because none of them is an infant?

A child is just as incapable of intrinsic moral understanding as an infant is. The point is irrelevant.

Are you saying that Jesus began teaching about infant baptism at that moment, but up until that time He had remained silent about the subject? Why would He not have (knowing all things ahead of time) already taught the disciples about the need to baptize infants? They certainly would not have rebuked anyone who brought an infant to the Savior for baptism if He had been teaching the principle.

There are lots of things Christ did which surprised the Apostles and so much to teach that it doesn’t surprise me that this MAY have been the first time the subject came up since it may also have been the first time that people brought their children to Jesus. It is also possible that the disciples just weren’t getting it from previous (unrecorded) events, as it is often shown in the gospels how the disciples need to be repeatedly reminded of certain facts.