Baptismal Question for Protestants

[jbelokur]

I was thinking today about baptism today, specifically the protestant response I often get that baptism is simply a physical testimony to what God has all ready done internally. As most of you know the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and some Protestant denominations believe that we are saved through the sacrament of baptism which was instituted by Christ. This basic concept is reflected in the point being made by Peter in the passage of 1 Peter 3:13-22 and Peter’s answer to the Jews in Acts 2:37ff. as well as others. But beyond that, I was think about the fact that most protestants believe that the marital act is not just a physical act signifying what God has done but that it also spiritually binds the couple together in the eyes of God. Now, one of the most common analogy that Paul makes between Christ and the Church is that of a bride and Groom, and in the Old testament we constantly read that God speaks of Israels’ unfaithfulness as adultery. My question is, if God uses a physical act to join together a man and a woman as husband and wife why would he not also use a physical act to join us to himself as his bride?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I was thinking today about baptism today, specifically the protestant response I often get that baptism is simply a physical testimony to what God has all ready done internally. As most of you know the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and some Protestant denominations believe that we are saved through the sacrament of baptism which was instituted by Christ. This basic concept is reflected in the point being made by Peter in the passage of 1 Peter 3:13-22 and Peter’s answer to the Jews in Acts 2:37ff. as well as others. But beyond that, I was think about the fact that most protestants believe that the marital act is not just a physical act signifying what God has done but that it also spiritually binds the couple together in the eyes of God. Now, one of the most common analogy that Paul makes between Christ and the Church is that of a bride and Groom, and in the Old testament we constantly read that God speaks of Israels’ unfaithfulness as adultery. My question is, if God uses a physical act to join together a man and a woman as husband and wife why would he not also use a physical act to join us to himself as his bride?

Seems reasonable.

God bless

 

[jbelokur]

Are there any protestants who would like to reply to my question?

 

[Priscilla_Ann]

Are there any protestants who would like to reply to my question?

The physical act that joins a husband and wife together is done by mutual consent. When I was baptized as an infant, there was no consent on my part – I was baptized without faith, knowlege or consent. That makes all the difference!

 

[jbelokur]

The physical act that joins a husband and wife together is done by mutual consent. When I was baptized as an infant, there was no consent on my part – I was baptized without faith, knowledge or consent. That makes all the difference!

In the OT were Israelite children not truly apart of the people of God because they did not consent to their circumcision?

PS: May I also ask if you begrudge the fact that your parents (did or should have) cared for you physically and emotionally with out your faith, knowledge and consent and that food, hugs and kisses where things you needed and God desired for you too? How much more your spiritual life? Also, did you have to consent to your being apart of your family before it was so?

 

[Priscilla_Ann]

In the OT were Israelite children not truly apart of the people of God because they did not consent to their circumcision?

PS: May I also ask if you begrudge the fact that your parents (did or should have) cared for you physically and emotionally with out your faith, knowledge and consent and that food, hugs and kisses where things you needed and God desired for you too? How much more your spiritual life? Also, did you have to consent to your being apart of your family before it was so?

Are you suggesting that one can be made Catholic against their will? I find nothing in scripture that supports that. One is a Christian because of what he/she believes about Jesus Christ – not because they were sprinkled. Sprinkling makes you wet; faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ makes you a Christian.

 

[jbelokur]

Are you suggesting that one can be made Catholic against their will? I find nothing in scripture that supports that. One is a Christian because of what he/she believes about Jesus Christ – not because they were sprinkled. Sprinkling makes you wet; faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ makes you a Christian.

What you are suggesting is a family of God made up of adults only. But is that the experience that we have a humans? Our families are a microcosm of God Himself, a mini-community. Within that mini-community you have babies who are just as much apart of the family and have claim to their family name as do the parents. Have they chosen that reality? No, but at some point those children will have to choose for themselves whether or not they will live up to their family obligations or not. Likewise my children have been grafted into the family of God completely unmerited, on equal grounds as my wife and I (on equal grounds as the pope!), yet at some point in their youth they too will have to make a decision to live up to their obligations as Catholic Christians and live out their faith! They may turn away but with God’s grace I pray that they will choose to be faithful. Like you suggest, they too will have to decide whether to exercise the gifts of faith, hope and charity they received though Gods completely unmerited gift of grace and mercy. Like Christ Himself said, Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (Mk 10:14)

Also, I ask you again, were the children of the Israelites truly Israelites themselves through circumcision or not? And like wise

 

[Priscilla_Ann]

What you are suggesting is a family of God made up of adults only. But is that the experience that we have a humans? Our families are a microcosm of God Himself, a mini-community. Within that mini-community you have babies who are just as much apart of the family and have claim to their family name as do the parents. Have they chosen that reality? No, but at some point those children will have to choose for themselves whether or not they will live up to their family obligations or not. Likewise my children have been grafted into the family of God completely unmerited, on equal grounds as my wife and I (on equal grounds as the pope!), yet at some point in their youth they too will have to make a decision to live up to their obligations as Catholic Christians and live out their faith! They may turn away but with God’s grace I pray that they will choose to be faithful. Like you suggest, they too will have to decide whether to exercise the gifts of faith, hope and charity they received though Gods completely unmerited gift of grace and mercy. Like Christ Himself said, Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (Mk 10:14)

Also, I ask you again, were the children of the Israelites truly Israelites themselves through circumcision or not? And like wise

The girl children were not circumcised. Were they not truly Israelites?

 

[jbelokur]

The girl children were not circumcised. Were they not truly Israelites?

Yes, it is clearly spelled out in the OT. This is the Mosaic law that the Israelites were commanded to observe. Do you question God’s law?

 

[Priscilla_Ann]

Yes, it is clearly spelled out in the OT. This is the Mosaic law that the Israelites were commanded to observe. Do you question God’s law?

I question Catholic law, when it is not supported by scripture, or when it adds to scripture. I have found that I cannot reconcile Catholic teaching with what I read in scripture. Baptism is merely one issue…there are many others, each of which would require an additional thread.

Unlike some here, I am not able to turn off my brain, and just trust the Catholic Church about baptism or anything else. They say you can know someone is a Christian by their fruit. Frankly, the Catholic Church has not borne good fruit through the centuries.

So, in short, I trust in Christ because of what he has done for me. I do not trust the Catholic Church.

 

[jbelokur]

I question Catholic law, when it is not supported by scripture, or when it adds to scripture. I have found that I cannot reconcile Catholic teaching with what I read in scripture. Baptism is merely one issue…there are many others, each of which would require an additional thread.

Unlike some here, I am not able to turn off my brain, and just trust the Catholic Church about baptism or anything else. They say you can know someone is a Christian by their fruit. Frankly, the Catholic Church has not borne good fruit through the centuries.

So, in short, I trust in Christ because of what he has done for me. I do not trust the Catholic Church.

Yet when scripture is as clear as Peter’s response in Acts 2:37-39 where he speaks in the imperative tense (or the tense of command) saying,
"[37]Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”

[38] And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
[39]** 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.”

Or the I Peter 3:13-22 passage which says,
[13]Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right?

[14] But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
[15] but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
[16] and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
[17] For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.
[18] For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
[19] in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
[20] who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
[22] who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

This is just the scriptural tip of the iceberg. So, what you must do is reconcile why your beliefs require the total reinterpretation of the plain sense of these two scripture passages in order to make sense? You also have to explain away why the Apostolic and Early Church Father fully concur with my understanding of these passages and your baptismal theology is found no where.

 

[jbelokur]

Here are a few quotes from the fathers on infant baptism:
Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

And a few more on the necessity of Baptism:
Hermas

“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’” (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian

“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!” (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

“Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (ibid., 12).

“We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost” (ibid., 16).

**
Hippolytus**

“[P]erhaps someone will ask, ‘What does it conduce unto piety to be baptized?’ In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: ‘Amen, I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvation” (Homilies 11:26 [A.D. 217]).

**
Origen**

“It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism” (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).

 

[phoenixrrt62]

Hum…reading this, you are saying that it is vitally important that an infant that enters this earth needs to be baptized pronto in order to go to heaven if, god forbid, they die before they receive the sacrament of confirmation. Is this right?

However.
Isn’t an infant/child considered to be without sin? I’d think so, and I think that most Protestant denominations follow that belief? Right?
Catholics believe this as well-right?

Now, if the person (I will use me as an example, as I was baptized “Marion Eileen” AGAINST my bio mother’s wishes) never receives any other Catholic sacrament, I am NOT catholic, and therefore not going to heaven…this is correct?
Oh, and I really wonder if unwed mother’s homes still do this. I think it’s a bit pretentious that they are working under the assumption that the infant just born (to an unwed mother, who may or MAY NOT be catholic) would want to be raised in the catholic faith…they didn’t ASK the mothers if they can baptize the child. They just did it.

Now, see, this is MY take on it.
If you are an infant, you don’t know what accepting Christ means. I do understand that it would be up to the parents, and in a normal baptism (unlike mine…ahem) the parents are told to follow the dictates of the church in raising the child. SO, well, I suppose it makes some kind of sense…IF they are serious about it…

BUT…

I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to wait until the person reaches the age of reason, and then*** they*** decide if they want to follow Christ, or no…so, I’d be more understanding of the protestant rationale for baptizing a person when they are 10-13 years old. You know?
Then again…a catholic confirmation would hit that base…but, isn’t that a bit redundant?

 

[guanophore]

I was thinking today about baptism today, specifically the protestant response I often get that baptism is simply a physical testimony to what God has all ready done internally. As most of you know the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and some Protestant denominations believe that we are saved through the sacrament of baptism which was instituted by Christ. This basic concept is reflected in the point being made by Peter in the passage of 1 Peter 3:13-22 and Peter’s answer to the Jews in Acts 2:37ff. as well as others. But beyond that, I was think about the fact that most protestants believe that the marital act is not just a physical act signifying what God has done but that it also spiritually binds the couple together in the eyes of God. Now, one of the most common analogy that Paul makes between Christ and the Church is that of a bride and Groom, and in the Old testament we constantly read that God speaks of Israels’ unfaithfulness as adultery. My question is, if God uses a physical act to join together a man and a woman as husband and wife why would he not also use a physical act to join us to himself as his bride?

It is definitely a glaring hole in the theology of baptism among some of our separated brethren. It is an error that originates in the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Since they have been separated from the Apostolic Tradition for 500+ years, the most reliable source of doctrine left to them is Scripture. So, rather that receiving the doctrine of the faith from the Church as Jesus intended, they attempt to extrapolate it from the Scriptures apart from the faith that produced them.

When one reads the NT, one can easily come to the conclusion of the modern evangelical “believers baptism”. It is full of holes in several areas.

 

[guanophore]

The physical act that joins a husband and wife together is done by mutual consent. When I was baptized as an infant, there was no consent on my part – I was baptized without faith, knowlege or consent. That makes all the difference!

Maybe you can help me understand this, because it does not make sense to me.

The question of the OP is, if God uses physical means to spiritually join in marriage, why can He not do that in baptism?

Also, if God wants to use physical means to join people to His covenant, why should babies be excluded?

Why did He use circumcision, the OT foreshadowing of baptism, to bring infants into His covenant, yet abandon this principle in the NT?

Scripture says “salvation is of the Jews”. God prepared a people for HImself, and in the fullness of time, He came to them as one of them. Jesus was brougth into the covenant by circumcision as an infant, where he had no “faith,knowledge, or consent”. If He willed this for Himself, then who are we to say it is not valid?

 

[jbelokur]

Hum…reading this, you are saying that it is vitally important that an infant that enters this earth needs to be baptized pronto in order to go to heaven if, god forbid, they die before they receive the sacrament of confirmation. Is this right?

However.
Isn’t an infant/child considered to be without sin? I’d think so, and I think that most Protestant denominations follow that belief? Right?
Catholics believe this as well-right?

**Yes and No. Do infants have actual sin or volitional sin, no, but do they have inherited sin, i.e. a sinful nature inherited from Adam? Absolutely! Infant baptism washes away original sin and imparts the gifts of faith, hope and love/charity. If you read Romans chapter 5 you will see Paul speaking clearly about what Adam has done, and what Christ has done. Chapter 6 begins, :
[1]What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?

[2] By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
[3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
[4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
[5]

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

[6] We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

It is through baptism that we die with Christ and enter into the Church**

Now, if the person (I will use me as an example, as I was baptized “Marion Eileen” AGAINST my bio mother’s wishes) never receives any other Catholic sacrament, I am NOT catholic, and therefore not going to heaven…this is correct?
Oh, and I really wonder if unwed mother’s homes still do this. I think it’s a bit pretentious that they are working under the assumption that the infant just born (to an unwed mother, who may or MAY NOT be catholic) would want to be raised in the catholic faith…they didn’t ASK the mothers if they can baptize the child. They just did it.

I need to say in response to this paragraph, firstly, I’m sorry this happened, but you can not make one isolated incident which itself departs from clear Catholic teaching to be used as a proof against true Catholic teaching. In the baptismal ceremony the parents are intimately involved in the process. I should know I’ve done it three time so far

Now, see, this is MY take on it.
If you are an infant, you don’t know what accepting Christ means. I do understand that it would be up to the parents, and in a normal baptism (unlike mine…ahem) the parents are told to follow the dictates of the church in raising the child. SO, well, I suppose it makes some kind of sense…IF they are serious about it…

BUT…

I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to wait until the person reaches the age of reason, and then*** they*** decide if they want to follow Christ, or no…so, I’d be more understanding of the protestant rationale for baptizing a person when they are 10-13 years old. You know?
Then again…a catholic confirmation would hit that base…but, isn’t that a bit redundant?

It makes no sense to look at the Catholic sacrament of Baptism and ignore what happens in Confirmation. The sacramental system is meant to function as a whole not in a fragmented way. In very basic terms in Confirmation we confirm what was done for us in faith by our parents.

 

[guanophore]

Are you suggesting that one can be made Catholic against their will?

Clearly not. As you said yourself, Jewish infants were brought into the covenant before they had a “will” in the matter, so they could not be “against” it. However, parents have a God given responsibility to raise their children in the faith and to care for them in every way (including spiritually). To withhold from them that which matters most in this life, and the next, would be a gross sin before God…

Did you not read how God chastized those in the OT for failing to bring their children into the covenant by circumcision?

An infant who is brought into the covenant is in a position to be raised according to God’s commandments. Scripture says “raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Now, we know that many children who are raised with faith in Christ, do, indeed, depart from it. No one can be “made” to believe against their will. But, parents are obligated to shape the will of the child toward God.

  I find nothing in scripture that supports that.

I should hope not. It is a flawed conclusion, based upon a faulty premise.

One is a Christian because of what he/she believes about Jesus Christ – not because they were sprinkled. Sprinkling makes you wet; faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ makes you a Christian.

You seem to have some serious misunderstandings about the nature of baptism.

Catholics do not “sprinkle” babies.

Your position represents a significant separation from the apostolic teaching on baptism.

 

[guanophore]

The girl children were not circumcised. Were they not truly Israelites?

The covenant was made in a day and age when women were considered property. Like slaves, they were included in whatever the men chose in whose care and guardianship they were living.

You are avoiding the question, though. If God uses physical means to join a man and woman spiritually, why can He not use physical means to bring people into covenant with Himself?

 

[Rocket_Man]

I was thinking today about baptism today, specifically the protestant response I often get that baptism is simply a physical testimony to what God has all ready done internally. As most of you know the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and some Protestant denominations believe that we are saved through the sacrament of baptism which was instituted by Christ. This basic concept is reflected in the point being made by Peter in the passage of 1 Peter 3:13-22 and Peter’s answer to the Jews in Acts 2:37ff. as well as others. But beyond that, I was think about the fact that most protestants believe that the marital act is not just a physical act signifying what God has done but that it also spiritually binds the couple together in the eyes of God. Now, one of the most common analogy that Paul makes between Christ and the Church is that of a bride and Groom, and in the Old testament we constantly read that God speaks of Israels’ unfaithfulness as adultery. My question is, if God uses a physical act to join together a man and a woman as husband and wife why would he not also use a physical act to join us to himself as his bride?

In marriage both the man and women vow to give one to the other before God. The vow is the union. When the pastor announces “I pronounce you man and wife” he is only declaring on earth what has already been spoken in Heaven. The exchange of rings are the earthly sign of that covenant.

Likewise, when God says to the sinner, “Here is my Son, take him” and the sinner says “I do” then the baptism to follow is an earthly sign of that covenant.

Circumcision of the flesh was unprofitable just as water baptism is without faith. Only through the God’s election was an Israelite set apart to Himself.

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;6850386]It is definitely a glaring hole in the theology of baptism among some of our separated brethren. It is an error that originates in the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Since they have been separated from the Apostolic Tradition for 500+ years, the most reliable source of doctrine left to them is Scripture. So, rather that receiving the doctrine of the faith from the Church as Jesus intended, they attempt to extrapolate it from the Scriptures apart from the faith that produced them.

I wouldn’t necessarily lay faulty hermeneutics at the feet of the practice of sola scriptura, at least not when it is practiced properly. Someone with more knowledge of the Anabaptists might be able to shed light on whether or not they even used the practice.
But perhaps your point is somewhat valid in that, properly practiced, sola scriptura does not exclude the early teachings of the Church. Those that do exclude them, tend to make these kinds of errors, I don’t know if its causative or merely coincidental.

The covenant was made in a day and age when women were considered property. Like slaves, they were included in whatever the men chose in whose care and guardianship they were living.

And yet, it seems that women were included in the early Christian faith, as whole households - which we must assume included women, children, servants, as they were parts of households - were Baptized, as scripture says.

You are avoiding the question, though. If God uses physical means to join a man and woman spiritually, why can He not use physical means to bring people into covenant with Himself?

For Lutherans, the use of physical means is one of the things that defines a sacrament.

Jon