Debating CoC preacher about Infant Baptism

[Tezza]

I need help with this.

He doesn’t buy that you can raise someone in the faith (like in OT when baby circumcized and raised as a Jew) because of Heb 8:11. Here’s what he wrote

The first question was based upon the statement in the catechism on page 316, “The proclamation of the word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, which is INSEPARABLE from BAPTISM”. My question is, when one baptizes an infant, is not faith separated from baptism and runs counter to the teachings of Jeremiah, Paul, Peter and Jesus concerning the nature of the New Covenant(Jer 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-12)? The second question, also based upon a statement in the catechism on pg 316, " Where infant baptism has become the form in which this sacrement is usually celebreated, it has become a single act encapsulating the prepatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very NATURE infant baptism requires a POST-BAPTISMAL cateechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its necessary place here". Question: How does one reconcile this statement, " a need for instruction after baptism" with Hebrews 8:11 “you will not go to your neighbor and say know the Lord for all will know me”?

Thanks.
Tezza

 

[NotWorthy]

Luke 5:18-20 - And some men brought on a stretcher a man who was paralyzed; they were trying to bring him in and set (him) in his presence. But not finding a way to bring him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on the stretcher through the tiles into the middle in front of Jesus. When he saw their faith, he said, "As for you, your sins are forgiven."This verse shows me that someone’s faith can affect someone else’s salvation. Isn’t this what happens in Infant Baptism?

You might want to also remind your friend that the 1st century Church (remember, this was over 200 years before Constantine “ran the Church off Her rails”!) certainly believed that infant baptism was effective , for they practiced it.

 

[Tezza]

Thank you Notworthy.

He has researched and found it isn’t until the second century it was certainly practiced, though the Church says it MIGHT have been practiced (whole households). Apparently, might isn’t good enough and second century isn’t early enough

 

[NotWorthy]

In regards to your question, I think paragraph 1253 & 4 best describes how the Church teaches Infant Baptism.

*Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: “Faith!”

For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.*

 

[NotWorthy]

Thank you Notworthy.

He has researched and found it isn’t until the second century it was certainly practiced, though the Church says it MIGHT have been practiced (whole households). Apparently, might isn’t good enough and second century isn’t early enough

He hasn’t investigated enough. He’s using the Catechism to claim “the 2nd century”, but there is earlier evidence.

And, finally, archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]

You’ll find this comes from a Methodist minister at revneal.org/Writings/aletter.htm*

 

[Tezza]

He hasn’t investigated enough. He’s using the Catechism to claim “the 2nd century”, but there is earlier evidence.

And, finally, archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]

You’ll find this comes from a Methodist minister at revneal.org/Writings/aletter.htm*

Thank you! I will pass this on.

 

[NotWorthy]

I can’t remember how the Church of Christ teach about the effects of Baptism and “being saved”. Do they believe in “Once saved, always saved” and Baptism is the sign of this saving? If so, then Infant Baptism can never be reconciled, for if an infant is baptized, and they lead a sinful life, then there’s no way that baptism could be effective.

 

[TimothyH]

Either he is throwing you a curve ball verse at you or he has a strict literal intepretation of scripture and likely cannot be helped.

The preacher’s question really doesn’t make sense unless he has a literal interperetation of Hebrews 8:11 and Jerimiah 31:31-34 as there being no need for any instruction whatsoever after one makes the initial act of faith by which he is saved.

I’ll bet even his Church has a sunday school. His questions seem a little absurd to me, given the verses he quoted.

-Tim-

 

[jcrichton]

I need help with this.

He doesn’t buy that you can raise someone in the faith (like in OT when baby circumcized and raised as a Jew) because of Heb 8:11. Here’s what he wrote

The first question was based upon the statement in the catechism on page 316, “The proclamation of the word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, which is INSEPARABLE from BAPTISM”. My question is, when one baptizes an infant, is not faith separated from baptism and runs counter to the teachings of Jeremiah, Paul, Peter and Jesus concerning the nature of the New Covenant(Jer 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-12)? The second question, also based upon a statement in the catechism on pg 316, " Where infant baptism has become the form in which this sacrement is usually celebreated, it has become a single act encapsulating the prepatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very NATURE infant baptism requires a POST-BAPTISMAL cateechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its necessary place here". Question: How does one reconcile this statement, " a need for instruction after baptism" with Hebrews 8:11 “you will not go to your neighbor and say know the Lord for all will know me”?

Thanks.
Tezza

Hi, Tezza!

…consider the fact that Christianity did not exist till Christ; that John the Baptist came to Baptize in water, to preach about the Kindgom of God, and to testify about the Coming of the Christ… none of these factors existed in the world… so it is natural that when John Baptized people he would Baptize adult men and women (interestingly enough I can’t recall Scriptures stating that John Baptized both male in female–yet, it is only common sense that he would); the Church did not exist–not even during John’s Ministry; the Church began to take shape at Pentecost… here, again, it would be most logical that adult males and females be found as Jesus’ Disciples would gain following…

Yet, could you imagine the Man that stated:

‘Let the little children alone, and do not stop them from coming to me; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of Heaven belongs.’

…would proceed to warn His Disciples not to Baptize those who are immature (mind/body) for they are yet not eligible to enter into the Kingdom of God?

…ask those who profess this hidden knowledge to show where exactly in Scritures is there a formula for the “correct” age when a child of man can be eligble to become a Child of God?

…would we, Christians, subscribe to Judaic customs (age 13 or so)? …should we follow customary rule of reason, which would definitely vary according to local regional custom (i understand that in Brazil there’s a tribe that sends its children out into the wilderness, on their own, almost as soon as they can carry the basic hunting tools)–which would be the appropriate age? …and in today’s modern tech world, could the wealthy kids (those whose parents can afford all sorts of technical advantages–ie: your child can read courses, computers, tutors or is it au pair?, where infants can reason/learn the language/math/history/political science segments) be eligible to receive Baptism several years prior to those who are destitute or disfunctional?

…common sense should tell us that the Church (which did not receive from Christ a single quick guide or any other mannual) began to take shape right there where Jesus Walked… His Ministry tended to whole families and Jesus Himself did not reject the children that came into His presence… the issue that most non-Catholics have is not with actual Biblical Teaching but with rejection of Church’s Authority; sadly, they challenge the Church by claiming to know from Scripture the Truth while they reject the Scriptural passages that explicitly or implicitly rejects their claim. (i.e.: Somehow, when Scriptures speaks of whole families accepting the Gospel and being Baptized that means with the exception of children of say “x” age–they will fill in the actual age according to their sect’s traditional teachings.)

…these same people believe, as the newly formed europa, that if you ignore 2000 years of history you can get to the total Truth–shame on them, at least the anti-Christ europa does not attempt to use God’s Sacred Writings to deny God!

…as for Hebrews 8:11… if we accept this terminology/interpretation, aren’t we calling Jesus a charlatan? …after all, He makes all this fuzz about Simon being Kephas and building His Community on him; giving him the keys to the Kingdom, delegating Authority to loosen and bind, then sends him and the rest to bring the Gospel to all of the world, and to Baptize them, and to Teach them about Him… then there’s that mysterious other Paraclete that He would send to Teach them the fullness of Truth and to be an additional Witness to His Claim to be the Messiah, the Resurrection, and the Life… consequenty, the Old Testament as well as the New Testament have been obsolete right from the original pronouncement of the text by Jeremiah (31:34)…

…does it make sense, that Yahweh God was Instructing the people of Israel to put away Scriptures and the Priesthood and all organized form of Worship as early as Jeremaih’s pronouncement and yet He forgot that the Messiah would not be sent till hundreds of years later; further, that the Messiah would bring about a new economy (Blood of the New Covenant) and that He would introduce a new form of Worship (St. John 4:23-24) and that His followers would be banished from the Temple and sinagogues and would have to begin a new Worship in the other Paraclete which Jesus promised to Send to them (St. John 14:15-26; 16:7-15; St. Luke 24:45-49; Acts 1:6-8; 2:1-47)?

…are they right or is Jesus right?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Tezza]

I can’t remember how the Church of Christ teach about the effects of Baptism and “being saved”. Do they believe in “Once saved, always saved” and Baptism is the sign of this saving? If so, then Infant Baptism can never be reconciled, for if an infant is baptized, and they lead a sinful life, then there’s no way that baptism could be effective.

They are similar to Catholicism in that they believe they are the true church founded at Pentecost, that Baptism is salvific for the remission of sins (if you are of age to repent), and practice “communion” every Sunday. They are not OSAS.

Maybe you can answer this for me…Is the only place where Jesus mentions baptism in scripture is to Nicodemius and then telling the apostles to baptize. Was there any mention of telling anyone to repent and be baptized?

 

[Tezza]

Either he is throwing you a curve ball verse at you or he has a strict literal intepretation of scripture and likely cannot be helped.

The preacher’s question really doesn’t make sense unless he has a literal interperetation of Hebrews 8:11 and Jerimiah 31:31-34 as there being no need for any instruction whatsoever after one makes the initial act of faith by which he is saved.

I’ll bet even his Church has a sunday school. His questions seem a little absurd to me, given the verses he quoted.

-Tim-

He is totally stuck on this verse being indictive of the New Covenant and it’s complete deviation from the OT with it’s practice of circumcision. From his email:

To conclude, the new covenant is not like the old. The old cov was a national covenant for a precise purpose- to bring Christ into the world. Where the Jews were born into covenant relationship at birth and then educated to the relationship they had with God, the new covenant is the opposite. "You will not go to your neighbor and say know(come to know) the Lord, for all shall know(settled knowledge) Me(Hebrews 8:11). Infant baptism has infants brought into covenant relationship just as the old, not knowing it, then educated to the terms of the covenant. Jeremiah and the Hebrew writer state this is not true.

 

[NotWorthy]

They are similar to Catholicism in that they believe they are the true church founded at Pentecost, that Baptism is salvific for the remission of sins (if you are of age to repent), and practice “communion” every Sunday. They are not OSAS.

Maybe you can answer this for me…Is the only place where Jesus mentions baptism in scripture is to Nicodemius and then telling the apostles to baptize. Was there any mention of telling anyone to repent and be baptized?

Peter’s words aren’t good enough in Acts 2:38? He had just received the Holy Spirit in the very same scene.

In the meantime, ask your friend what Jesus means, “Do not prevent the children from coming to me, for the kingdom belongs to such as these”. (paraphrasing) In this context, “the children” were infants… not 12 year olds.

 

[Mickey]

In the meantime, ask your friend what Jesus means, “Do not prevent the children from coming to me, for the kingdom belongs to such as these”. (paraphrasing) In this context, “the children” were infants… not 12 year olds.

Indeed! Also ask him if he baptizes the mentally handicapped who may never reach this so-called “age of reason”.

 

[NotWorthy]

Indeed! Also ask him if he baptizes the mentally handicapped who may never reach this so-called “age of reason”.

Also ask him what constitutes a “whole household”. In the Jewish tradition, whole households meant 3 or 4 generations of people living together, along with any servants (the jailer probably didn’t have any servants, but a wealthy merchant like Lydia probably did).

Now, granted, this doesn’t prove that neither of these families had young children, but the author of Acts, knowing this to be the norm, would have stipulated that in explaining the status of Lydia’s and the jailer’s families. In other words, “then Paul baptized the jailer’s entire family, but bear in mind, all of his kids were ‘of age’ to decide for themselves”!

 

[FCEGM]

He is totally stuck on this verse being indictive of the New Covenant and it’s complete deviation from the OT with it’s practice of circumcision. From his email:

To conclude, the new covenant is not like the old. The old cov was a national covenant for a precise purpose- to bring Christ into the world. Where the Jews were born into covenant relationship at birth and then educated to the relationship they had with God, the new covenant is the opposite. "You will not go to your neighbor and say know(come to know) the Lord, for all shall know(settled knowledge) Me(Hebrews 8:11). Infant baptism has infants brought into covenant relationship just as the old, not knowing it, then educated to the terms of the covenant. Jeremiah and the Hebrew writer state this is not true.

But, if the New Covenant surpasses the Old (and we know it does), why would it exclude children of believers when children had formerly been included? The new converts from Judaism would not have seen this an an improvement.

Further, in the ancient world in those societies where circumcision was practiced, it was the Jews alone who circumcised infants, whereas the other societies waited until the boy was about to enter manhood; thus it was a rite of passage associated with fertility, where for the Jews circumcision (and later Baptism with the Christians) was a sign of a covenant entered into with God.in the ancient world in those societies where circumcision was practiced, it was the Jews alone who circumcised infants whereas the other societies waited until the boy was about to enter manhood; thus for the non-Jews it was a rite of passage associated with fertility, where for the Jews circumcision (and later Baptism with the Christians) was a sign of a covenant entered into with God from the beginning of a child’s life.

A good parent knows to give what is best for the child; an infant isn’t free to choose milquetoast and jam over mother’s milk. So it is with baptism that the infant’s inclusion in the covenant established by Christ strengthens it for its life in Him. God Himself established the pattern with the circumsion of infant Jewish males.

 

[PLeeD]

In this context, “the children” were infants… not 12 year olds.

How do you know they were infants and not 12?

 

[NotWorthy]

How do you know they were infants and not 12?

From either the Navarre Commentary or the Ignatius (Hahn/Mitch). The word that translates to children is better translated as “infants”. The commentators express that the likely age of these kids would have been newborn to 2 or 3. I’ll see if I can find those comments and quote them, but I don’t have them with me.

 

[PLeeD]

In the meantime, ask your friend what Jesus means, “Do not prevent the children from coming to me, for the kingdom belongs to such as these”. (paraphrasing) In this context, “the children” were infants… not 12 year olds.

From what I can tell, Jesus used the same word (from Mark 10:14, “little children”) in Mark 5:39 when He referred unequivocally to a 12 year old girl. In both verses, the Greek word used is “paidion” (Strong’s G3813).

Based on that, how can Jesus’ interaction with the “little children” be used to argue in favor of infant baptism?

 

[Mickey]

Also ask him what constitutes a “whole household”. In the Jewish tradition, whole households meant 3 or 4 generations of people living together, along with any servants (the jailer probably didn’t have any servants, but a wealthy merchant like Lydia probably did).

Now, granted, this doesn’t prove that neither of these families had young children, but the author of Acts, knowing this to be the norm, would have stipulated that in explaining the status of Lydia’s and the jailer’s families. In other words, “then Paul baptized the jailer’s entire family, but bear in mind, all of his kids were ‘of age’ to decide for themselves”!

Yes.

The word ‘household’ for any Israelite of the day included everybody in the household, children included. We must remember that a household always included children throughout the Scriptures. Every time God established or spoke about His covenant with the House of Israel, it included the whole of Israel: men, women, and children. Noah’s whole ‘household’ was taken into the ark with him (Genesis 7:1); Abraham had his whole household circumcised (Genesis 17:23), and specifically his son Isaac when he was eight days old (Genesis 21:4); the whole household of every family was taken out of Egypt, and God’s institution of the Passover specifically included the children (Exodus 12:24–28). If the Apostles had taught that children were to be excluded from full inclusion in the covenant, such an innovation would not have fit the prophetic covenants which preceded the fulfilled covenant enacted through Christ.
Fr John Hainsworth

 

[Tezza]

In the meantime, ask your friend what Jesus means, “Do not prevent the children from coming to me, for the kingdom belongs to such as these”. (paraphrasing) In this context, “the children” were infants… not 12 year olds.

Oh, he has an answer for that, too.

In Fr Matt’s second argument for infant baptism, he alluded to Luke 18:15-16 where babies were brought to Jesus and the disciples rebuked them. Jesus then said, “Permit them to come…for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these”. I assume Fr Matt is saying this verse is teaching babies need salvation. But notice Jesus did not say babies need salvation. Jesus is saying the opposite. Jesus said the kingdom BELONGS to them. If the kingdom belonged to them sin had not been imputed unto them which would cast them from the presence of God. (Isaiah 59:2) Matthew 18:2 interprets for us further where Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are CONVERTED and BECOME LIKE CHILDREN, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven”. Jesus here declares children innocent and in no need of salvation for they already have it. They are born into this world pure and innocent. They have not sin imputed unto them. In fact, we are to become like them so we can also be saved. Let us illustrate with Adam the first man.