Baptism

[bona_fides_1]

What about Tertullian?

I am not an expert in Tertullian but know that he was heretical in some of his latter teachings. In fact Tertullian was a determined advocate of strict discipline and an austere code of practise, and one of the leading representatives of the rigorist element in the early Church. These views may have led him to adopt Montanism with its ascetic rigor. Irrespective, Tertullian while influential never spoke for the Church Universal as an individual - that’s the pope’s role. My own assessment is that Tertullian had mixed teachings on baptism - professing a personal opinion that the natural soul is defective but when awakened, it passes to health and at once calls upon God and is naturally Christian. But its unclear to me if Turtullian’s awakening and calling to God is in fact his projecting of how the soul responds to the call to the church and baptism. After all, in “De baptismate” he likens the human souls to “little fishes, after the example of the ichthys, fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water.” If there are contradictory statements by him they are more than offset by the majority of the other ECFs.

I would be interested in seeing your references on this. Are you referring to Dionysius of Alexandria?

It’s aquired knowledge over the years from various historical sources. I would have to go back and re-investigate where I originally got all this information from.
Some of it you can read between the lines for yourself here: newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm . From that newadvent reference you will see that Turtullian the rigorist was outraged over Pope Callistus’ liberalization of apostolic forgivness to permit forgiving of all kinds of sins viz sacramental confession since its obvious from the history that previously it was rare to get apostolic forgivness for certain sins committed after baptism. The original Christians were very strict and spiritually tough - nothing at all like the modern day “just believe” non-Catholic Christians of current times of the variety who imagine they are forgiven of post-baptismal sins by “just believing” or saying a short prayer. For that matter modern day Catholics would be seen little better for the exact fears of Turtullian and Oregin in being so lenient in willingness to forgive sins of the laity viz apostolic absolution. In the early days the early Christians would have stood in line for days for the opportunity to be apostolically forgiven of sins and would be shocked at the apathy of modern day Catholics who sin gravely and do not go to confession at every opportunity. But they would absolutely horrified over Protestant ideas that one could be forgiven by merely “trusting that one was forgiven” without a laying on of hands and words of absolution by a Catholic Bishop.

Here is a quote from Origen, Ambrose and Augustine who say:
“For the graver crimes, there is only one opportunity of penance” (Hom. xv, “In Levit.”, c. ii); and St. Ambrose: “As there is one baptism so there is one penance, which, however, is performed publicly” (On Penance II.10.95). St. Augustine gives the reason: “Although, by a wise and salutary provision, opportunity for performing that humblest kind of penance is granted but once in the Church, lest the remedy, become common, should be less efficacious for the sick . . . yet who will dare to say to God: Wherefore dost thou once more spare this man who after a first penance has again bound himself in the fetters of sin?” (Ep. cliii, “Ad Macedonium”).

Ironically I seem to have read in Luther’s original 95 thesis that he was also originally against being so liberal in the apostolic forgivness of sins. Yet later at the apex of his revolution he goes hard-over the opposite way and almost teaches that sin is an expression of one’s faith in Christ’s redemptive power! But I digress.

BF

 

[panevino]

The Apostle John said we do not become the children of God by the will of man, but by the will of God. Since Catholics believe we become the children of God through baptism (correct me if I am wrong) I would like to present a little scenario.

Let’s take to married couples for example, couple A and couple B. Let’s say both couples have a baby. Couple A decides to have their baby baptized and couple B decides not to have their baby baptized. By whose will was their baby baptized or not baptized: the parent’s or God’s?

I’m only a beginner in all this and still learning.

but I accept that we have free will.

Couple A infant was baptised given parents cooperation with gods grace. Only brought about because of gods will. John 1:13 & 6:44. With confirmation allowing child to respond to gods grace when older.
Couple B assuming they are Christians - parents acting on thier belief in alt doctrine. No idea if this is gods will. I am parent b at moment given Protestant wife.
Perhaps god has a different path for my children that we as parents /they will respond to in future.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

What contradictions? Any apparent contradictions probably arise from your non-Catholic background or else I did not say something clearly enough?

The apparent contradictions arise because they are apparent. You cannot say something is necessary then say there are exceptions. Either infant baptism is necessary or it is not, it cannot be both. Speculation means nothing.

I don’t see any contradiction. An ordinary human infant child has at conception a natural but fallen human-nature soul. That said it has no stain of personal sin. But that personal innocence is not sufficient in itself to gain salvation - only God can impart sanctifying grace. But there is no sanctifying grace imparted by the act of conception or by birth. So how does an infant get it?

Why is a child’s innocence not enough to gain salvation? Show me where in the Bible it says we will be judged by anything other than our own works. Can you tell me what works an infant can do that would cause it to not have eternal life?

Paul taught that even gentiles who were without the Law had the Law of God written on their hearts – he called it a natural law. He said their conscience bears witness to their obedience or disobedience to this natural law. On judgment day they will either be accused or excused according to the law written on their hearts. Because of that sin nature you have been talking about, everybody who matures to the point of knowing right from wrong will do wrong and must be reconciled to God through Christ. An infant, by virtue of its inability to sin is justified by the law written on its heart. But even an infant cannot raise itself from the dead by virtue of its innocence; that is accomplished by the finished work of Christ.

We are not born condemned because we are not born with any knowledge of sin. It’s the Law that points out our sin. Paul said the doers of the Law are justified. An infant is a doer of the Law because it has done nothing against the Law. Aside from that, there has been only one doer of the Law and that was Jesus. Jesus was born and raised under the Law and found righteous. Jesus then took His righteousness and exchanged it for our unrighteousness – all of us who put our faith in Him. He took that unrighteousness and killed it at the cross.

The problem with infant baptism is that it is an attempt by man to make Christians out of babies. That is an impossible task. The thing that is bad about that is that when a person who was baptized as a baby accepts the Gospel of Christ, believes and repents, they might not follow through with Jesus’ command to be baptized for the remission of sins. If they are Catholic when this happens, they will certainly reject baptism as they will feel they have already accomplished it, even though they have no recollection of it and they consciously had nothing to do with it.

Infants are innocent and there is no condemnation for them because they have not sinned, and they have eternal life because Christ was raised from the dead. That is biblical.

My point about Tertullian is that he opposed infant baptism. You said no such opposition existed until the Protestant reformation. You were obviously wrong about that. Montanism is the achilles heal of Tertullian’s legacy. It’s unfortunate that it is conveniently used to discredit him whenever Catholics are faced with something he said that they do not like.

 

[bona_fides_1]

The apparent contradictions arise because they are apparent. You cannot say something is necessary then say there are exceptions. Either infant baptism is necessary or it is not, it cannot be both. Speculation means nothing.

This is a strawman. Infant baptism is prudential - not essential. Did I say essential in the absolute sense? I don’t think so - if I did I did not mean it this way. It is normative. Clearly if the unbaptised child survives through its age of reason and then goes on later in adult life to become baptised and stay in grace this soul may be saved. But for parents to not baptise an infant is irresponsible since the parents are taking unnecessary risks that may have unhappy eternal consequences for their child. Although we certainly have an optimistic hope, we have no divine assurances or direct instruction from God that He will have mercy on infants - even when free of personal sin. Infanticide and offering up the baby to the mercy of the gods by chance abandonment is a pagan concept – not a Christian concept. Christian parents consciously deciding not to baptise an infant when they know it is a guarantee of salvation through the age of reason are not far removed from the grave sin of presuming upon God’s Mercy; or putting God to the test that He will let the child grow up and be baptised after the age of consent. This also abdicates any notion of the Christian head of household from the Christian expectation and apostolic tradition that entire households of all age groups are called to serve the Lord (e.g. “As for me and my household we will serve the Lord” [see Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3,Luke 18:15, Acts 2:39, Acts 10:47-48, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Cor. 1:16, ]).

You would do well also to remember that God did punish children if their parents did not do what He commanded.

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. Given that the Christian baptism replaces circumcision it is blatantly clear here that those parents who do not baptise their children are subject to the same punishments as were the Jews for not circumcising their infants by day 8.

Again let me say it - there is no grace imparted by natural birth. Birth is not a sacrament.You forget that our defective fallen human nature gives rise to a thing called original sin. The entire point I made turns on the prudential aspects of baptism not on its necessity in childhood.

Why is a child’s innocence not enough to gain salvation? Show me where in the Bible it says we will be judged by anything other than our own works. Can you tell me what works an infant can do that would cause it to not have eternal life?

Because there is no concept of universal salvation by rite of birth. If this were true Jesus would not have needed to make the Great Commission to baptise and teach all nations His commandments. Jesus could have simply ascended to heaven and said “see ya on the other side” and left. I don’t believe that you undertand that God raises our very nature to ABOVE Adam’s when we are baptized. We are an all new Creature in Christ and have some divine attributes (e.g. supernatural charity, love, hope etc.) that make it possible for us to live in Heaven. Natural man can not live in heaven since he is not suited to it (he would flee God out of fear and shame) - only the transformed and elevated by grace human can live in heaven. You also forget that sin is not just a function of what we do but rather can also be a function of what we do not do. A child can not gain any supernatural merit without baptism. Living and growing in God’s grace viz baptism is an inner work of faith.

Because of that sin nature you have been talking about, everybody who matures to the point of knowing right from wrong will do wrong and must be reconciled to God through Christ.

Correct - baptism is the normative way to initially reconcile one to God.

An infant, by virtue of its inability to sin is justified by the law written on its heart. But even an infant cannot raise itself from the dead by virtue of its innocence; that is accomplished by the finished work of Christ.

An infant is not justified by its natural facilities. If the infant dies God may or may not show mercy on it. We have no assurances but we do trust in God to “do the right thing.”
That said, we have been given “the right thing” that has guarantees of salvation to such an infant soul - it’s called baptism. Ask yourself why are you against baptising infants? Do you imagine that salvation is a labor of the mind?

BF

 

[bona_fides_1]

We are not born condemned because we are not born with any knowledge of sin. It’s the Law that points out our sin. Paul said the doers of the Law are justified. An infant is a doer of the Law because it has done nothing against the Law. Aside from that, there has been only one doer of the Law and that was Jesus. Jesus was born and raised under the Law and found righteous. Jesus then took His righteousness and exchanged it for our unrighteousness – all of us who put our faith in Him. He took that unrighteousness and killed it at the cross.

*Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. *

The judgement was made long ago - any of Adam’s offspring are condemned out of the womb unless one becomes justified by the Law (up through the time of Christ - and after only by invincible ignorance of Christ) or unless one becomes justified by baptism into Christ (and stays there through life) or unless God grants Mercy for His own reasons (perhaps by intercessory prayer of the Christian faithful).

It just does not follow from scripture that we are without sin at birth. Scripture makes it plain enough that we are:
Job 14:1,4 - man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? All humans are afflicted with original sin, and this includes babies as well. This is why the Catholic Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years.

Psalm 51:5 - I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. We have inherited Adam’s sin from the moment of our conception. This is why babies need baptism – to wash away the original sin inherited from Adam and Eve.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came into the world through one man, Adam, and death came through this sin. This sin affects all people, men and women, babies and adults. Through the merits of Jesus Christ, we have the sacrament of baptism to wash away the sin that came through Adam.

Rom. 5:14 - death reigned from Adam to Moses, born from Adam’s original sin. This is a mystery we do not fully understand, but we must all acknowledge our propensity toward evil and our need of God.

Rom. 5:16 - the judgment following one single trespass brought condemnation for all. This means all have inherited the sin of Adam, and all must be washed clean of this sin in the waters of baptism.

Rom. 5:19 - by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners. Original sin is passed on as part of the human condition, and only God in the flesh could atone for our sins by the eternal sacrifice of Himself. Through this sacrifice, God has re-opened the doors to heaven, and through baptism, we are once again made children of God.

1 Cor. 15:21 - for by one man came death. In Adam, all die. In Christ, the new Adam, all now may live.

Eph. 2:1-3 - we were all dead through sin and all lived in the passions of our flesh until Christ came to save us.
*

BF

 

[bona_fides_1]

The problem with infant baptism is that it is an attempt by man to make Christians out of babies. That is an impossible task. The thing that is bad about that is that when a person who was baptized as a baby accepts the Gospel of Christ, believes and repents, they might not follow through with Jesus’ command to be baptized for the remission of sins. If they are Catholic when this happens, they will certainly reject baptism as they will feel they have already accomplished it, even though they have no recollection of it and they consciously had nothing to do with it.

This is gravely wrong. The Catholic infant is baptised on the faith of its parents then later confirmed after the age of reason. Only one baptism is possible since there is only one baptismal mark of Christ (no x outs permitted). Christ explicitly told us to baptise and to bring the children to Him. and not impede them under severe penalty. As you have properly noted a child can no commit personal sin but you fail to then make the connection that no repentance is necessary. Either you believe in the power of baptism or you do not. Which is the case? The infant will be exposed to the gospel at least every Sunday of its life in the Catholic household as it grows up. If the child attains the age of reason and throws off his Christian teachings and sins gravely - he puts himself at risk of eternal damnation if he does not later repent again and receive apostolic forgivness. Why do you think that a child must have a recollection of its baptism? Does a child have to have a recollection of its birth to know it is alive and the child of Mr. and Mrs. Smith? What does retained knowledge of baptism have to do with salvation (this sounds gnostic).

Again - show me a single verse in scripture that says one must have a conscious recollection of baptism or be of the age of consent to be baptised? There is none since this is a new tradition that some Protestants invented. What about an unbaptised adult who suffers a stroke or goes into a comma just before they were scheduled to be baptised. Are you saying that an emergency baptism should be denied because they can’t understand the words? Are mentally handicapped excluded from God’s Kingdom?

Infants are innocent and there is no condemnation for them because they have not sinned, and they have eternal life because Christ was raised from the dead. That is biblical.

This is unbiblical. Some verses seem to support it but others deny it. We trust in God’s Mercy and pray for unbaptised infants who die.

My point about Tertullian is that he opposed infant baptism. You said no such opposition existed until the Protestant reformation. You were obviously wrong about that. Montanism is the achilles heal of Tertullian’s legacy. It’s unfortunate that it is conveniently used to discredit him whenever Catholics are faced with something he said that they do not like.

I should have said that there was no wide spread opposition to infant baptism. Of course some of the other heretics did not even believe in baptism. How far do you want to take it? I also said that Tertullian never spoke as the head of the Christian Church - only the popes did and the Catholic Church has always taught infant baptism was expedient and acceptable.

BF

 

[Brian_Culliton]

An infant is not justified by its natural facilities. If the infant dies God may or may not show mercy on it.

That’s ridiculous. It sounds like the Catholic Church has more respect for Christ-denying Muslims than it dose for God’s innocent creations.

Christ explicitly told us to baptise and to bring the children to Him. and not impede them under severe penalty.

Excuse me? Where did Christ explicitly say to baptize little children under severe penalty?

The judgement was made long ago - any of Adam’s offspring are condemned out of the womb unless one becomes justified by the Law (up through the time of Christ - and after only by invincible ignorance of Christ) or unless one becomes justified by baptism into Christ (and stays there through life) or unless God grants Mercy for His own reasons (perhaps by intercessory prayer of the Christian faithful).

Then what did Jesus mean when He said, “Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven”? If we are condemned out of the womb, why did He say to become like them?

Baptism is the normative way to initially reconcile one to God.

Oh contraire! Is that what they are teaching you? The way to reconciliation with God is through faith in Christ. Baptism follows. John 1:12, 6:29, 6:47, 7:38-39, 11:26, 12:46, 17:20, 20:31, Acts 16:31, Rom 4:16-25, Rom. 10:9, Gal. 3:26, and about a million more!

 

[bona_fides_1]

That’s ridiculous. It sounds like the Catholic Church has more respect for Christ-denying Muslims than it dose for God’s innocent creations.

What is rediculous is forgetting that Muslims have children too and that God calls us to love all His creatures.

Excuse me? Where did Christ explicitly say to baptize little children under severe penalty?

You parsed my statement wrongly. He did not say both of those things in the same breath. He said that we must be baptised. He also said “bring the children to me and do not hinder them”.

Then what did Jesus mean when He said, “Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven”? If we are condemned out of the womb, why did He say to become like them?

I think we can say this was a lesson on the merits of trust, innocence, enthusiasm and eagerness to please the teacher. Why do you suppose Christ taught the necessity for baptism if there was no need for it?

Oh contraire! Is that what they are teaching you? The way to reconciliation with God is through faith in Christ. Baptism follows. John 1:12, 6:29, 6:47, 7:38-39, 11:26, 12:46, 17:20, 20:31, Acts 16:31, Rom 4:16-25, Rom. 10:9, Gal. 3:26, and about a million more!

Why do you seperate faith from baptism? An infant is baptised based on the faith of its parents and at confirmation after the age of consent accepts his inheritance based on his own faith.

BF

 

[panevino]

Originally Posted by panevino View Post
John 3:5
considered to refer to baptism by irenaeus
per my previous post. Ignatius - “…He submitted to baptism, so that by his passion He might sanctify water”

mark 16:16 Belief and baptism are required.

acts 8:38 called baptism after water not prior declaration of belief.

acts 2:37-38

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Culliton
Just to be clear, I am not saying baptism is optional for those who believe. I am questioning the validity of baptism for those, such as infants, that haven’t the capacity to believe.

You believe Jesus was referring to water baptism in John 3:5, but how do you reconcile that with what Jesus said in His very next breath, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”?

Doesn’t it sound like He is talking about two births here; our natural birth and our re-birth in the spirit? …

panevino wrote:
I see john 3:6 is all about the conflict between a person struggles in ways of flesh and spirit that is expressed in other verses including jesus.

Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

john 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

gal 6:8 … For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Brian , just looking back , my response above was done in a rush .
I agree v6 is refering to 2 births
born of flesh is flesh
born of spirit is spirit.
I dont however then think this justifies interpretation that the word water in v5 then refers to our physical birth.
As with irenaeus and other ECF I see ‘water and spirit’ as water baptism with faith.
I see v6 as a highlight of the competing natures of the ways of the flesh and spirit discussed in the above verses, with Jesus highlighting in v6 that we need to be born again per v3 and explaining how in v5 ie “water&spirit”

Perhaps John 3:6 and the picture of the contrary nature of being born of flesh is relevant to our discussion on the fallen nature/separation from god through Adam

 

[mikeledes]

Psalm 51:5

5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

Psalm 58:3

3The wicked are estranged from the womb;
These who speak lies go astray from birth

Infants are born with original sin and are in need of salvation. If we say that an infant is "naturally"saved, then we are saying that Christ has not saved ALL those who go to heaven.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Brian_Culliton]

You parsed my statement wrongly. He did not say both of those things in the same breath. He said that we must be baptised. He also said “bring the children to me and do not hinder them”.

Right, He never said to baptize little children and He never said there would be severe penalties for not doing so. Yes, He said we must be baptized, but there is a process. A person must first hear the Gospel, and then believe, then repent of their sins, and then be baptized for the remission of their sins.

I think we can say this was a lesson on the merits of trust, innocence, enthusiasm and eagerness to please the teacher. Why do you suppose Christ taught the necessity for baptism if there was no need for it?

Good, so then don’t you think that when He said, “bring the children to me and do not hinder them" He meant that we should teach them so that they can believe and be baptized when they understand what it means?

I don’t know why you assume I don’t think we need baptism; where did you get that?

Why do you seperate faith from baptism? An infant is baptised based on the faith of its parents and at confirmation after the age of consent accepts his inheritance based on his own faith.

If you look at what you just said it is you that is separating faith and baptism. I said baptism follows faith, and I don’t mean years later I mean as soon as possible. You on the other hand are saying that baptism brings a child to God by the faith of another. That is impossible since nobody can become a child of God by the will of man (John 1). Jesus told His disciples to teach and make disciples and baptize. You are acting as though He commanded them to just go out and baptize.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Brian , just looking back , my response above was done in a rush .
I agree v6 is refering to 2 births
born of flesh is flesh
born of spirit is spirit.
I dont however then think this justifies interpretation that the word water in v5 then refers to our physical birth.
As with irenaeus and other ECF I see ‘water and spirit’ as water baptism with faith.
I see v6 as a highlight of the competing natures of the ways of the flesh and spirit discussed in the above verses, with Jesus highlighting in v6 that we need to be born again per v3 and explaining how in v5 ie “water&spirit”

Perhaps John 3:6 and the picture of the contrary nature of being born of flesh is relevant to our discussion on the fallen nature/separation from god through Adam

You are defiantly not alone Panevino, a lot of folks see it the way you do. For me personally I do not see that from the context. However, I like something you said. You said, “I see ‘water and spirit’ as water baptism with faith.” Whose faith, the person being baptized or someone else’s?

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Psalm 51:5

5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

Psalm 58:3

3The wicked are estranged from the womb;
These who speak lies go astray from birth

Infants are born with original sin and are in need of salvation. If we say that an infant is "naturally"saved, then we are saying that Christ has not saved ALL those who go to heaven.

God Bless,
Michael

Please read Romans 2.

 

[mikeledes]

Please read Romans 2.

The universality of sin. How does that contradict the verses I cited? We are by nature children of wrath. Something that is by nature is not something aquired later in life.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Pax]

Brian C in Christ,

There is actually plenty of reason in scripture to agree with infant baptism.

In the OT Infant Baptism is prefigured.

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.”

cont. on next post:

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post:

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.”

1 Corinthians 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, 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.

 

[panevino]

You are defiantly not alone Panevino, a lot of folks see it the way you do. For me personally I do not see that from the context. However, I like something you said. You said, “I see ‘water and spirit’ as water baptism with faith.” Whose faith, the person being baptized or someone else’s?

Yes, per CCC fruits of the sacraments are dependant on the disposition of the recipient.
Ie no faith no fruit.
It’s a liitle more complex than that, but that’s in the CCC

I believe that infAnt baptism is effectual via parents faith cooperating with grace.
Why do we need to repent and have remmision of sin as part of baptism, I think it is to enable us to become a child of god, with a heart open to god and cleaned of personal sin and turned toward god.
Sounds just like the state of an infant.
Backed up by Jesus saying in the gospels… For of such is the kingdom of god…
Aand also telling us to accept him as like children… Words to that effect anyway…

I find the Passover night and the effect of the parents faith by displaying the blood of the lamb on the door to save thier infant as a strong prefiguration of Christian infant baptism.

Parents action is brought about only by gods will, with parents responding to that grace in faith. Therefore I see no contradiction with your John verse re mans will. It all stems from gods will . Mans will alone would not achieve it.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Right, He never said to baptize little children and He never said there would be severe penalties for not doing so. Yes, He said we must be baptized, but there is a process. A person must first hear the Gospel, and then believe, then repent of their sins, and then be baptized for the remission of their sins.

What do you mean Jesus did not tell us to baptize children??? He most certainly did. Do you think that Children are 2nd class citizens and are unfit for the Kingdom of God? Jesus & John the Baptist where children at one time Brian!

Further in NO place in scripture does Jesus ever tell us to NOT baptise Children. Under the general commission to the apostles he spoke in the most universal, the most inclusive and most general unrestrained terms. He said “baptize THEM”. This means all people, all ages, all races, all sexes etc: Come on Brian you are just being pig-headed here…

*Matthew 28:29 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
The only general “process” (your term) that might be implied in the bible for baptism is to: 1) Believe in Christ, 2) Repent and 3) be Baptised in the name of The Lord. This is the normal process for an adult. It’s VERY simple Brian. But for Children it gets even simpler. You ave already admitted that children have no personal sin so there is obviously no need for repentance now is there? As for believing in The Lord that is all implicit in a Christian family through their parents teachings Brian. How many times must I re-state the scripture here that vividly portrays that the head of household speaks for the household when there is a marriage and when there are children living under their roof? This is reinforced time and time again in OT and NT accounts of parents dedicating their children to The Lord viz circumcision at 8 days. Even Jesus was presented by His parents (Mary & Joseph) at age 8 in the temple. What do you think baptism is all about? It is a new covenant sign that replaces the OT sign of circumcision. But it also rebirths a person in “water and spirit” - the spirit being the Holy Spirit. This is one of the most fundamental concepts in all of Christianity…

Joshua 24:15b But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

Good, so then don’t you think that when He said, “bring the children to me and do not hinder them" He meant that we should teach them so that they can believe and be baptized when they understand what it means?

You are notorious for reading in new things Brian. Jesus said simply “Bring the Children to Me”. CHILDREN Brian! He did not say bring them to me as children for an introduction then bring them around later after they grow up so the can decide later. We bring the children to The Lord in baptism and let them grow and become strong, filled with wisdom and God’s grace just like Mary & Joseph did with the infant Jesus.

*Luke 2:22 When the time [8th day] of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”**)…

Luke 2:39-40 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.
**

BF*

 

[bona_fides_1]

I don’t know why you assume I don’t think we need baptism; where did you get that?

Because you keep trying to hinder the children from coming to the Lord through baptism against the explicit commandment of The Lord to go out and baptise all people of all nations.

If you look at what you just said it is you that is separating faith and baptism. I said baptism follows faith, and I don’t mean years later I mean as soon as possible. You on the other hand are saying that baptism brings a child to God by the faith of another. That is impossible since nobody can become a child of God by the will of man (John 1). Jesus told His disciples to teach and make disciples and baptize. You are acting as though He commanded them to just go out and baptize.

Impossible? Sorry - nothing is impossible for God. You are misapplying John 1.

You do not apparently yet comprehend that faith is powerful stuff and that the faith of one’s friends and one’s parents is efficacious . Do you think that the Roman Centurion in Capernaum’s paralyzed servant (ref: Math 5:8-13)that was healed from afar based on his master’s faith was healed because of his own faith in Jesus? Nope. Likewise it plainly follows that a child who is already without personal sin is under the authority of its parents and can be accepted into God’s family based on the faith of its parents and their commitment to raise the child in the teachings of the faith. Baptism is a convent no different than circumcision was to the Jewish infant who was dedicated to The Lord by its parents.

Don’t over read John 1:10-13. John was merely stating that Christ offers salvation to all who would receive him. The poetic nature of the scripture verse is not intended to exclude anyone but to be inclusive of all people independent of bloodline (see the complaint about "“his own did not receive him”). This passage from John 1 is pure Catholicism - a universal church and people of God independent of race or nation. Don’t get too literal however with the words “nor to human decision” as as a means to invalidate baptism of infants based on the decision of one’s parents. After all the Christian parents all decided to receive the Lord, believe in His name and be baptised in the first place. By trusting in the Lord they have children as a blessing to show for that trust. It would be a complete violation of the Lord’s trust to NOT have the infant sanctified and dedicated to the Lord. Go back to the OT - there are many examples of the head of household speaking for all the household and all being blessed - Noah and his family, Lot and His Family etc. Why do you imagine that a head of household receiving the Lord does not extend to his children?

John 1:10-13 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

BF

 

[Mark01]

It is interesting to me that those who profess a “believers baptism” tend to loose sight of the fact that all of the first Christians were adult converts. Either Jewish or Gentile/Pagan, the apostles where speaking to those adult converts. We see in a very short time in the Bible where whole households were baptized, which would have included the children of the household.

It seems very logical/biblical that baptism for children was and has always been an act/profession of faith based on the child’s Christian parents. It is my observation that those who profess “believers baptism” seem to “go back” to the baptism performed by John the Baptist which was not a Christian baptism.