Debating CoC preacher about Infant Baptism

[NotWorthy]

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?

I prefer to look at how the same author uses it. You’ll find John the Baptist referred that way by Luke and a couple of other times. I was just reading this commentary during my lunch hour, but I was on an exercise machine when I read it, so I know where to find it. I’ll follow up with it tonight, unless someone else beats me to it.

 

[Tezza]

I prefer to look at how the same author uses it. You’ll find John the Baptist referred that way by Luke and a couple of other times. I was just reading this commentary during my lunch hour, but I was on an exercise machine when I read it, so I know where to find it. I’ll follow up with it tonight, unless someone else beats me to it.

Just noticed you are from Sour Lake! I know it well. My mother’s family is from Orange.

Have a great day!
Teri

 

[Tezza]

How do y’all like this one (from same email)

One thing we do know and have agreed upon. Tradition cannot contradict the teachings of Jesus or the writings of Peter, Paul or any of the other writers of sacred scripture. In addition, scripture interprets scripture which is what makes it so beautiful and makes it what it is, the truth, the word of God. John 17:17, “Sanctify them(spoken to the apostles) in the truth; Your word is truth.” The church? I Timothy 3:15 “…the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support OF the truth”. Note here the church is not the truth, the word of God is. The church is the pillar and support OF truth. Paul in Ephesians 2:19-20 wrote “God’s household, having been built ON the foundation of the holy apostles and prophets, Christ Himself being the corner stone”. Scripture is very clear that the church does not generate truth, rather she supports and defends the teachings of the holy apostles and prophets as revealed by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17;John 15:26-27;John 16:13;Ephesians 3:3-5). When the truth the holy apostles revealed is contradicted, it is then that we fall into what Jesus described in Matthew 15 as traditions of man which invalidate the word of God.



I wonder what translation quotes Timothy as “support” of the truth?

 

[PLeeD]

I wonder what translation quotes Timothy as “support” of the truth?

A quick Google session reveals that it’s the NASB. I’m not familiar with that translation.

For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. (Rom 3:23)

So who is Paul referring to in Romans?:

Romans 5:14 - Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.

 

[Tezza]

Romans 5:14 - Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.
[/INDENT]

Those who did not directly disobey an explicit command of God? I would think that would include infants and mentally handicap, yet they are still stained with original sin.

 

[PLeeD]

Those who did not directly disobey an explicit command of God? I would think that would include infants and mentally handicap, yet they are still stained with original sin.

But are you saying then that unbaptized infants are doomed to hell if they die? I don’t think you are saying that, and I don’t think the Catholic church teaches that. I don’t think the church teaches that the unbaptized mentally handicapped are going to hell either.

So then, in terms of the Gospel of Jesus, what purpose does infant baptism serve?

I see it as a traditional ritual that does more for the parents than the baby. I think that infants are going to heaven, baptized or not. You disagree?

 

[Mickey]

I don’t think the church teaches that the unbaptized mentally handicapped are going to hell either.

Of course not. Nobody knows who is going to hell. If an unbaptized infant passes away—he/she is left to the mercy of God.

I see it as a traditional ritual that does more for the parents than the baby.

You are sadly mistaken.

 

[NotWorthy]

Just noticed you are from Sour Lake! I know it well. My mother’s family is from Orange.

Have a great day!
Teri

Sour Lake - Birthplace of Texaco.
Orange - The “right side” of Texas!

 

[NotWorthy]

But are you saying then that unbaptized infants are doomed to hell if they die? I don’t think you are saying that, and I don’t think the Catholic church teaches that. I don’t think the church teaches that the unbaptized mentally handicapped are going to hell either.

So then, in terms of the Gospel of Jesus, what purpose does infant baptism serve?

I see it as a traditional ritual that does more for the parents than the baby. I think that infants are going to heaven, baptized or not. You disagree?

What does infant baptism serve? Well, while we don’t know what happens to a baby that dies un-baptized, we do know that someone who is in a state of grace when they die go to heaven. If a baby is baptized and then dies before sinning, that would certainly seem to indicate that the child will go to heaven. What Catholic parent wouldn’t want that to happen!

 

[jcrichton]

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.

…so by their definition Scriptures must read: “for all will sin” rahter than “for all have sin.”

…Jesus is not speaking about the state of original sin or rather the absence of if but about the state of heart and mind; children, at least during Jesus’ temporal existence, were full of trust and lacked wickedness; they trusted their parents implicitly and believed what they were taught about Yahweh God and the promise of the Messiah; to deny original sin is to deny all Scriptures that speak of it.

Further, anyone who has observed infants can attest to the fact that jealousy, anger, rivalry, egotism soon develope in them–even if at a mere rudimentary level. Was Jesus unaware of this? These feelings/emotions are rooted in the original sin; however, obtinate malicious behavior is developed at will–soemthing that small children, way back when were not kin to adopting as today’s children are.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[NotWorthy]

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?

Mark may have used “paidon”, but Luke (in 18:15) uses “Brephos”, which means “a newborn or small baby”.

Here’s how the Ignatius Bible Study puts it:

The noun, “Brephos”, is used eight time in the NT. It is here tied to the important question: Who is invited to enter God’s Kingdom? Does Jesus call to himself children above the age of reason, or all little ones - infants and adolescents alike? The meaning of this term in several NT contexts leaves no reoom for doubt. Luke himself uses it to describe the new-born Jesus lying in a manger (Lk. 2:12, 16) and even John the Baptist as an infant still in the womb (1:41, 44)! In Acts 7:19, it refers to Israel’s male children immediately after their birth, and Peter uses it metaphorically to depict young Christians who long for spiritual milke (1 Pet 2:2). Together these references make it certain that Jesus calls even newborn babies to share in his heavenly kingdom (Lk. 18:16).

 

[NotWorthy]

Not originally, but has been slightly more open to the idea after reading something from scripture about man being in Adam’s image (sorry I don’t know the particulars). Overall, though, I’d say no, thus no need for baptism for the remission of sins until we start sinning.

Except for John 3:5-6 - Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. A baby is born “of the flesh”.

 

[jcrichton]

Assemblies of God doesn’t practice infant baptism. More here:

ag.org/top/beliefs/gendoct_11_accountability.cfm

Years ago I did become godfather of my niece in an infant baptism in a Lutheran church. I personally don’t have any problem with practicing the ritual, but it doesn’t seem important to me.

AoG does believe in original sin. From the “Statement of Fundamental Truths” page on the official AoG web site:

The Fall of Man
Man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.” However, man by voluntary transgression fell and thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is separation from God.

So original sin is separation from God of all humanity, and the resulting physical death that accompanies. However, we believe that children, especially infants, who aren’t intellectually able to understand right and wrong, are not held responsible for their sin. I don’t think this is much different from Catholic teaching, is it?

In any event, I’d point out that this verse indicates that some have not sinned:

**Romans 5:14 **- Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.

Not sure who that would apply to other than infants, or whoever isn’t able intellectually to understand right from wrong, e.g. young children, mentally disabled, etc.
e CoC. I think it’s a lot like AoG in that there is some latitude in what individual church pastors might teach on some issues.

…the passage indicates that some have not sinned in the manner of Adam not that they are free of sin; since a baby/infant does not have a will contrary to Yahweh God’s that little person is not held accountable to the sin of transgression–rather, he/she is held accountable to Adam’s sin (for all have sinned): ergo: original sin; hence infant Baptism!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

But are you saying then that unbaptized infants are doomed to hell if they die? I don’t think you are saying that, and I don’t think the Catholic church teaches that. I don’t think the church teaches that the unbaptized mentally handicapped are going to hell either.

So then, in terms of the Gospel of Jesus, what purpose does infant baptism serve?

I see it as a traditional ritual that does more for the parents than the baby. I think that infants are going to heaven, baptized or not. You disagree?

…you are assuming that Yahweh God is just OK with me waiting till “x” age to bring my offsprings into the Fold… is the Body of Christ a club for the comeherethers as you well please?

Christ did not set out to found a country club with rights and privileges for some and just rights and obligations for others… the Church developed her Doctrines and practices as the Holy Spirit guided her; it would be senseless to hold back Grace due to “not yet the right age” or “here’s the list of sins you must commit before we can allow you the Grace to be Born Again…”

Other than the Authority of Church, the issue of Infant Baptism is null; which one of us would wait till our children are old enough to decide if he/she wants to go to college before securing elementary, middle, and high school education for them? Conversely, why are pro-gun and pro-anything else except Christianity parents in such a rush to get their toddlers into the “best” schools or the use of the latest techs or “sex education” or the ability to hunt/kill game or the use of a gun or the craze of infant everything (swimming, reading, painting, modeling)… yet, when it comes to becoming part of the Body human widom, in some cases, dictate “less is more” or “let’s wait an see” or “Yahweh God would not “X”?”

The fact is that Scriptures do speak on Baptism of whole household and Jesus did not suggest that only the men should receive the portions of bread and fish that He gave out to the crowds… quiet the contrary, Jesus broke with tradition and Instituted His Own when He stated “Allow the Children to Come to Me!”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Tezza]

But are you saying then that unbaptized infants are doomed to hell if they die? I don’t think you are saying that, and I don’t think the Catholic church teaches that. I don’t think the church teaches that the unbaptized mentally handicapped are going to hell either.

So then, in terms of the Gospel of Jesus, what purpose does infant baptism serve?

I see it as a traditional ritual that does more for the parents than the baby. I think that infants are going to heaven, baptized or not. You disagree?

I think others have clarified this well. We presume upon the mercy of God (let the children come to me). This understanding and teaching of the Church, however, does not detract from the role of Baptism in the remission of the stain orf original sin (and all other sin if of age of reason). When one is baptized, they receive efficacious grace (it actually has an effect) and the Holy Spirit. When one is Baptized, they are intiated in the Church, the Family of God, the Body of Christ, When one is Baptized, they die and rise with Christ and are given new life in Him (again, heaps of grace!)

As you told me earlier the AoG belief in original sin, it only seems half the picture–the result on humanity, i.e. death. If they really understood it as a separation from God, then you would see all separated, infants included, and would bring them quickly into union with him again. Age of reason and future sin would have nothing to do with it.

Quick question…why even baptize at all? I’m guessing AoG doesn’t believe it removes sin or they would have infant Baptism. And do they baptize mentally handicapped, comatose, etc?

Thanks!
Teri

 

[Tezza]

How do y’all like this one (from same email)

One thing we do know and have agreed upon. Tradition cannot contradict the teachings of Jesus or the writings of Peter, Paul or any of the other writers of sacred scripture. In addition, scripture interprets scripture which is what makes it so beautiful and makes it what it is, the truth, the word of God. John 17:17, “Sanctify them(spoken to the apostles) in the truth; Your word is truth.” The church? I Timothy 3:15 “…the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support OF the truth”. Note here the church is not the truth, the word of God is. The church is the pillar and support OF truth. Paul in Ephesians 2:19-20 wrote “God’s household, having been built ON the foundation of the holy apostles and prophets, Christ Himself being the corner stone”. Scripture is very clear that the church does not generate truth, rather she supports and defends the teachings of the holy apostles and prophets as revealed by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17;John 15:26-27;John 16:13;Ephesians 3:3-5). When the truth the holy apostles revealed is contradicted, it is then that we fall into what Jesus described in Matthew 15 as traditions of man which invalidate the word of God.

:

Has anyone heard the term “scripture interprets scripture”?

 

[Tezza]

Except for John 3:5-6 - Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. A baby is born “of the flesh”.

Good point!

 

[NotWorthy]

Has anyone heard the term “scripture interprets scripture”?

Yes, its quite common. The point is, if someone reads Scripture with an open heart, that it is easy to understand and interpret.

Of course, when one considers the 1000’s of various churches out there, each with a different teaching then, either:
a) Scripture DOESN’T interpret Scripture.
or
b) Most of these churches don’t read the bible with an open heart.

The one fact about “Scripture interprets Scripture” that is the easiest to understand is that Scripture calls “The Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth”. Now, what does that say about the Church that has been around for 2000 years?

 

[PLeeD]

Quick question…why even baptize at all? I’m guessing AoG doesn’t believe it removes sin or they would have infant Baptism. And do they baptize mentally handicapped, comatose, etc?

How can sin be removed without faith?

If you took a random un-churched adult off the street, who knows nothing about Christ, and baptized them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, would their sin be removed? I don’t think it would without the repentance of that adult. Specifically, repentance based on understanding God’s grace, Jesus’ sacrifice, and faith in His resurrection.

A baby doesn’t have faith. Can’t have faith. Without faith there is no remission of sin through baptism. The good news is that God’s grace can exist outside of faith, so it doesn’t mean that everyone without faith and without baptism is going to hell. This is precisely what the Catholic church teaches. There is baptism of desire, for example.

I’m not arguing against infant baptism. As I said before, I participated in the baptism of my infant niece, and am her godparent. I just don’t find it to be scripturally necessary, and don’t find any intellectual arguments for its need to be persuasive. If I decided to convert to Catholicism I would accept it as necessary to be part of the church with no qualms. I still would not go around implying that unbaptized infants are doomed to hell.

So my question back to all of you would be, does the Catholic church teach that an unbaptized two-month old infant is more likely to go to hell than a two-year old infant who is baptized in a Catholic church?

BTW, thanks to all who pointed out the difference in the passage in Luke. I had only looked into what Mark says about it.

 

[Tezza]

How can sin be removed without faith?

If you took a random un-churched adult off the street, who knows nothing about Christ, and baptized them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, would their sin be removed? I don’t think it would without the repentance of that adult. Specifically, repentance based on understanding God’s grace, Jesus’ sacrifice, and faith in His resurrection.

A baby doesn’t have faith. Can’t have faith. Without faith there is no remission of sin through baptism. The good news is that God’s grace can exist outside of faith, so it doesn’t mean that everyone without faith and without baptism is going to hell. This is precisely what the Catholic church teaches. There is baptism of desire, for example.

I’m not arguing against infant baptism. As I said before, I participated in the baptism of my infant niece, and am her godparent. I just don’t find it to be scripturally necessary, and don’t find any intellectual arguments for its need to be persuasive. If I decided to convert to Catholicism I would accept it as necessary to be part of the church with no qualms. I still would not go around implying that unbaptized infants are doomed to hell.

So my question back to all of you would be, does the Catholic church teach that an unbaptized two-month old infant is more likely to go to hell than a two-year old infant who is baptized in a Catholic church?

BTW, thanks to all who pointed out the difference in the passage in Luke. I had only looked into what Mark says about it.

I’m pretty sure we already answered this. No, the Catholic Church does not teach that an unbaptized two month old infant is more likely to go to hell than a two year old infant who is baptized (in our outside the Catholic Church). We presume upon the mercy of God.

So clarify for me again, you said the AoG teaches that original sin is a separation from God. How are those “born of the flesh” exempt from that separation?

And just wanted to ask again, why does your church baptize?

Thanks,
Teri