Debating CoC preacher about Infant Baptism

[Huiou_Theou]

Yes. You are mistaken.

And I apologize for not reading the remainder of your post. I find it very difficult to read your prolonged dissertations on this forum.

But make no mistake…you are in error. And most of the Catholics on this forum would concur.

VATICAN CITY (CNS)-- After several years of study, the Vatican’s International Theological Commission said there are good reasons to hope that babies who die without being baptized go to heaven….

The church continues to teach that, because of original sin, baptism is the ordinary way of salvation for all people and urges parents to baptize infants, the document said.

But there is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and “wants all human beings to be saved,” it said. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ’s special love for “the little ones,” it said….

The 41-page document, titled “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized,” was published in Origins, the documentary service of Catholic News Service. Pope Benedict XVI authorized its publication earlier this year.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

I see. Yeah, I suppose if I am that difficult to read it would be better to bow out for now. I wouldn’t want to disagree with a majority, sometimes it is best to leave a mob alone even if the catechism’s footnote goes to a “certainty” and not a “hope”. But it is good to hope; and if anyone thinks I said what mickey thinks I said – please; take the time to read it again, slooowly. I make mistakes, and people make assumptions. (Well, God does too, but his are right.) but I REALLY do try to clarify the qualifications about baptismal promises.

Peace to you all.
–Your brother in Christ Jesus, Andrew.

 

[PLeeD]

That’s an unfair clarification, for the sacrament of Baptism had not been instituted (Acts 2:38).

I see. So it’s OK to those examples to argue in favor of infant baptism, but not against?

 

[NotWorthy]

I see. So it’s OK to those examples to argue in favor of infant baptism, but not against?

No, its unfair to claim that “there is no proof” of infant baptism from Scripture by using the Gospels, for baptism was not inititiated yet.

I’ve shown the parallels where someone else’s faith was the key to a person receiving Grace and having their sins forgiven. This is a parallel to what happens in infant baptism. You say, I just don’t see any proof of infant baptism… all while ignoring Scripture (“whole households”, “seeing their faith”) and Tradition (infant baptisms beginning in the 1st century.

That’s your business, not mine.

 

[DrPiano]

Thanks, Elisa! I tried to emphasize the nature of our relationship with God as a result of the incarnation being one of great intimacy that could never have been accomplished without God’s becoming man, that the veil has been lifted and that is what is refered to in Heb 8. I like very much your verse from Ezekial:thumbsup:

Thanks Tezza - its one of my favorites Totally shocked me when I heard it for the first time.

1.   The Church was given all authority to bind and loose on earth; “all authority” includes the authority to baptize infants. (This ends the discussion, IMO.)

2.   No verse of scripture explicitly forbids the baptism of infants. (ie, Thou shalt not…)

3.   Baptism is called the “circumcision of Christ”. Circumcision was the ritual of initiation by which Jewish parents brought their children into the Old Covenant; baptism is the ritual of initiation by which Christian parents bring their children into the Church.

4.   Numerous passages in the New Testament reveal that whole households were baptized (one after midnight); it is likely that these households included children below the age of reason.

5.   Historical evidence shows that the early Church practiced infant baptism.

Infant baptism is a practice of apostolic origin. Catholics do admit that in the third century there was a debate over infant baptism. Cyril records the disagreement: “As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

**You can see that the debate was not about whether or not to baptize infants; the issue was whether to wait until the eighth day to baptize a child as was the practice with circumcision (Lev. 12:2–3).

**As Cyril mentioned, the Church rejected the innovation of Fidus to delay baptism. The apostolic practice had already been firmly passed on, as was recorded by Hippolytus in A.D. 215: “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).

Origin also mentions that in the year 248 infant baptism was nothing new: “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9).

What is significant is that in the midst of numerous affirmations of the practice of infant baptism, one does not find a single voice crying out that the practice was an invention.

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*

Just figured I’d reiterate this post - it’s easily earlier than all the textual citations (very good citations, by the way) of infant baptism in the early church and is an acheological gem Thanks NotWorthy for pointing it out way back when.

 

[Mickey]

But it is good to hope

Yes. Christ is all merciful.

I missed this line in one of your posts. My apologies.

“Jesus, himself, can baptize with the holy spirit at the moment of death;”

 

[frankiej]

I just thought id ask everyone to read my blog and leave a comment about what you think of it,

frankiejatheism.blogspot.com/

many thanks
Frankie J

 

[PJM]

Tezza;

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

***Heb. 8: 9-11 *“not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: 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. [11] And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,’ for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest

The First point is simple advice: anytime one culls and quotes a single verse it needs to be out back into the fuller teaching to gain the right message**.

*Here we see that Christ was speaking of the New Covenant [which voids the Older
Covenants …**Heb. 8:13]. *And Paul simply quotes Jer. 31 which deals with “INTRINSIC EVILS,” those acts so heinous as to be [or ought to be] known without instruction.

It is also noteworthy that the Jewish Bar mitzvah, and circumcision were typologies of Catholic Baptism and Confirmation. The initial rite made them “members of,” and the other informed “members of.” No where in the Bible does it say ones religious education is COMPLETE once you are a member of “the Church.”

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 Q stems from CCC # 1231, and as indicated above is Entry into, not based on the infants-Faith; rather based on the Faith of the parents. It is critically different and Perfected THROUGH the Sacrament of Baptism which, unlike circumcision, which is only evidence of membership; actually infuses GRACE sufficient to remove the stain of Original sin, making such a person eligible for entry into heaven if they were to die prior “to the age of reason.”

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

*See above explanation of the meaning of Heb. 8:11. Where Christ teaches implicitly that each and every soul is offered sufficient grace to Discover Gods basic Moral Laws without being taught. One is also granted sufficient grace to come to know God. The Universe Alone is sufficient for proving God. Thus many rudimentary religions recognize the presence of a god or many gods based on what they see in nature.
Instruction of religion post-baptism has always been part of Tradition. And this practice continues through Mass and Services of every Faith. *

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PLeeD]

The AoG believes there is an “age of accountability” where a child become intellectually aware of sin, and at that point they become accountable.
Mickey;7850646:

What is the origin of this teaching?

While the phrase “age of accountability” is not found in scripture, it is implicit in the text.

For a biblical basis I’d point to Philip and the Ethiopian:

Acts 8:36-38 - As they were traveling down the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, “Look, there’s water! What would keep me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

So “age of accountability” comes from the idea that if a child is not capable of “believing with all their heart”, which includes understanding the issues at hand, then they are not ready to be baptized.

Secondly, I’d say it’s a corollary to the Catholic idea of mortal and venial sin. Mortal sin leading to eternal separation from God requires grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent, plus lack of repentance. All of those require a level of intellect not found in an infant or small child.

I believe that infant baptism is a very early tradition that is edifying for all involved. I would only question the idea that it is essential for an infant who dies to have been baptized in order to avoid hell.

Something else occurred to me. What happens to the souls of those who die early in pregnancy through miscarriage, and never live to see the world outside of their mother’s womb? I can only believe that, though they are un-baptized, the mystery of grace provides them with a place in heaven.

I see no difference in the spiritual status of a human being whether they are three months old, or are in the womb of a mother who is three months pregnant.

 

[Mickey]

While the phrase “age of accountability” is not found in scripture, it is implicit in the text.

I would say that infant baptism is implicit in the text regarding whole households being baptized.

For a biblical basis I’d point to Philip and the Ethiopian:
Acts 8:36-38 - As they were traveling down the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, “Look, there’s water! What would keep me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

I do not see an “age of accountability” here. I see an adult believer being baptized.

So “age of accountability” comes from the idea that if a child is not capable of “believing with all their heart”, which includes understanding the issues at hand, then they are not ready to be baptized.

Larry Christenson, in his pamphlet "What About Baptism", quotes Edmund Schlink (author of The Doctrine of Baptism) as stating that the rejection of infant baptism was based on the secular philosophy of the sixteenth century which assured man’s individuality, and was not the result of a new Scriptural inquiry:
“'Believer’s baptism was seen in rationalistic and volitional terms, as an act of the mind and the will. ‘Because an infant cannot think or decide, it cannot have faith, and therefore should not be baptized.’ To this day. that is the only argument raised against the validity of infant baptism. One tosses off the sentence as though it were self-evident truth: ‘A child can’t believe.’ But that ‘truth,’ upon examination, is neither self-evident, nor is it Biblical.”

I believe that infant baptism is a very early tradition that is edifying for all involved.

I believe it is more than that. I believe it was a practice from the beginning…attested to by the fact that there is no record of Christian uprising anywhere in history regarding a change in practice…in addition to multiple implicit Scriptural references and the witness of the ECF’s.

I would only question the idea that it is essential for an infant who dies to have been baptized in order to avoid hell.

I question that also…sometimes a child reposes before the parents can have him/her baptized. God is all-merciful.

Something else occurred to me. What happens to the souls of those who die early in pregnancy through miscarriage, and never live to see the world outside of their mother’s womb? I can only believe that, though they are un-baptized, the mystery of grace provides them with a place in heaven.

Amen.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Secondly, I’d say it’s a corollary to the Catholic idea of mortal and venial sin. Mortal sin leading to eternal separation from God requires grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent, plus lack of repentance. All of those require a level of intellect not found in an infant or small child.

Actually, the concept of mortal vs venial sin has little to do with it because the Church doesn’t teach that removing those is the primary purpose/efficacy of baptism. Yes, it does remove those sins, if we have them, when we get baptized, but the primary purpose is the removal of original sin and the integration of the person into the Body of Christ. Original sin doesn’t come from our volition, will, or intellect, it comes from our being human. So, it does not at all require “a level of intellect not found in an infant of small child.” Because the child is what it is, it has the stain of original sin and therefore needs Baptism to remove that stain. Similarly, because the child has original sin, it lacks the grace to be one with the Body of Christ, and, again, therefore needs Baptism to unite it with Christ. The faith that we need for Baptism to be efficacious doesn’t come from any of us. It comes from Christ. As many a Protestant has complained to me, “man can do nothing to effect his own salvation. It is by the work of God that we are saved.” Amen. That’s why it’s the Church’s faith that works in Baptism: because the Church is the Body of Christ, therefore Her faith is the gift of God, just as is the faith given, as a gift, to the adult convert. All the faith required for Baptism always comes from God as a gift, whether the baptized is an adult or an infant.

Something else occurred to me. What happens to the souls of those who die early in pregnancy through miscarriage, and never live to see the world outside of their mother’s womb? I can only believe that, though they are un-baptized, the mystery of grace provides them with a place in heaven.

I see no difference in the spiritual status of a human being whether they are three months old, or are in the womb of a mother who is three months pregnant.

And that is no different than what the Church teaches. When we say, “those children who die before baptism ‘are entrusted to the mercy of God’” or some such thing, we mean that we do not expect that they have no hope of heaven. We mean, rather, that we know that God is love and God is merciful, so we trust that He who wills that all men be saved can and will use His love, mercy, and knowledge of their innocent state to decide whether or not they go to heaven.

 

[Nicea325]

For a biblical basis I’d point to Philip and the Ethiopian:

Acts 8:36-38 - As they were traveling down the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, “Look, there’s water! What would keep me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

So “age of accountability” comes from the idea that if a child is not capable of “believing with all their heart”, which includes understanding the issues at hand, then they are not ready to be baptized.

Sorry,but the above verses in no shape or form were written in defense of “age of accountability.” What I read is someone who pracitices eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. You are injecting your own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever you want.

 

[PLeeD]

Sorry,but the above verses in no shape or form were written in defense of “age of accountability.” What I read is someone who pracitices eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. You are injecting your own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever you want.

Sorry, but the verse clearly says that Philip tells the eunuch that he needs to believe before being baptized. That is the basis for the principle of the age of accountability.

You can reject that reasoning if you want, but your opinion on the matter doesn’t make the explanation unreasonable. I find this explanation far more reasonable than clinging to the nebulous word “households” to justify belief in a tradition. It’s also vastly more reasonable than citing pre-pentecost examples of healing or forgiveness of sins that didn’t even include baptism to explain infant baptism.

In the end, I have no idea whether the Catholic church has the full truth on this matter or not. I have no quarrel with the practice; as I mentioned that I am godparent to my niece who was baptized as an infant. What I do know is that I find the scriptural justifications for infant baptism extremely weak.

I’d be more satisfied with the answer that simply says “it’s the teaching of the church, so Catholics do it”. The attempts that I’ve seen so far to justify it based on scripture are unconvincing.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Sorry, but the verse clearly says that Philip tells the eunuch that he needs to believe before being baptized. That is the basis for the principle of the age of accountability.

You can reject that reasoning if you want, but your opinion on the matter doesn’t make the explanation unreasonable. I find this explanation far more reasonable than clinging to the nebulous word “households” to justify belief in a tradition. It’s also vastly more reasonable than citing pre-pentecost examples of healing or forgiveness of sins that didn’t even include baptism to explain infant baptism.

In the end, I have no idea whether the Catholic church has the full truth on this matter or not. I have no quarrel with the practice; as I mentioned that I am godparent to my niece who was baptized as an infant. What I do know is that I find the scriptural justifications for infant baptism extremely weak.

I’d be more satisfied with the answer that simply says “it’s the teaching of the church, so Catholics do it”. The attempts that I’ve seen so far to justify it based on scripture are unconvincing.

PLeeD, we don’t believe in Tradition because we’re “clinging to the nebulous word ‘household’ to justify” it. We believe in Tradition because the Bible tells us in multiple places things like, “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (II Thess. 2:15). While it’s true that we accept that “households” is most reasonably understood as including children/infants, we follow the Tradition because the Bible tells us to trust the Tradition handed down by and from the Apostles, not because we are desperate to find justification in whatever verse can be most easily twisted to fit our preconceived notions. However, we also know that for over a dozen centuries, this traditional practice was not merely supported by the “well, it’s Tradition, so we practice it” argument, but rather with the application of many, many, many Bible passages by the ECFs, including the OT references to being washed with water and to Baptism’s OT corollary Circumcision, etc. A large part of the reason it is Tradition is because the Church and the ECFs have constantly taught that infant baptism is the norm taught by the Bible. It’s not either the Bible or Tradition, it’s both the Bible and Tradition.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Part 1:

Pleed, I apologize ahead of time for hopping onto this thread a bit unannounced, probably against my better judgment (I tend to get addicted to this forum). A few quick points after reading through the posts, I will try to make every point reasonably succinct so that we make intelligent headway, since I probably will not post often…

1. To clarify the issue of the term “brephos” vs. “paidion:” Paidion has a more primary meaning of infants and in some cases can mean little children. Brephos, however, has the connotation of infant. Considering that the passage in Luke is describing the same instance presumably as Matthew, the term brephos should be understood as a narrower clarification of a slightly more lax term chosen by Matthew. It would be like me referring to my friend having brought his kid to my house, and then I tell the same story to another person and clarify that he brought his baby. The story clarifying that I meant a baby should be the lens through which to view the story, since it is a more precise word.
2. I applaud your desire to know the “why” of this theological matter. One should probably keep things in terms of “covenant” to understand why the baptism of infants has been deemed necessary by the Church. No, infants have not inherited the *personal sin *of Adam, but Adam cannot pass along what he doesn’t have. He lost covenantal solidarity with God through his fall, and no longer had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As covenantal head, what he *cannot *pass along is a nature of covenant union with God, and what he *can *pass along is the tendency to sin, since that is now his nature. Every person must essentially make the individual choice to make the “choice of Adam.” He must choose covenantal solidarity with God that was lost by the covenantal head.
3. Representation is a concept rife throughout scripture, and is the very basis for covenant as well as society. So it should not surprise you that a man and woman as covenant heads of their family may speak for their child before the “age of reason” as you refer to it.
4. Back to the instance of blessing the children. The terminology is significant. The passage in Luke clarifies that the parents were bringing their infants to be blessed. Notice that the promise made to Abraham is that all nations would be blessed through his descendants; in this and other passages, “blessing” has the connotation of salvation. Not only is there this link, but when one considers that St. Paul refers to baptism as analogous to circumcision (as well as his repeated Abrahamic references), there is good reason to see a Sacramental act being performed here. The kingdom belongs to those such as the children, and the kingdom was one of the three promises to Abraham. The blessing should be seen with its appropriate significance.
5. Blessing and healing from sin are often visible signs of the interior disposition of the soul. As such, making a direct connection between baptism and these acts is in some ways a bit irrelevant, since God can act outside of His sacraments. Baptism is the infusing of Divine grace, and yet God can do so directly. How Jesus does it as God in the flesh is beside the point; grace is grace. Baptism, however, is the means given to the Church as the Body of Christ.
6. You made the point that Jesus said that the kingdom of God already belonged to the infants. Yet there is no past tense connotation with the verb. It implies now, at this moment. If they were already blessed, they wouldn’t very well be taken to Jesus to be blessed. The kingdom belongs to the children, and yet the children are being brought to Jesus by their parents. Other examples of household representation, such as the centurion, help shed light on the significance of faith in another’s stead as well.
7. Middle and Near eastern homes have lots of babies. They always did, and they still do. Making the assumption that Near and Middle eastern homes did NOT have babies lies the burden of proof on the the Non-Catholic. Why should we prove that a culture with no reliable method nor inclination toward birth control, a culture that believed in children and covenant promises through said children; why should we prove that this culture specifically had babies mentioned in the text? The assumption is already there, and it is in complete continuity with prior covenantal entry (made clear by Paul) as well as Church practice after the institution of the New Covenant.

cont…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

continued…

1. It appears that you continually make the faith the necessary component, implying that baptism is not faith in itself. This distinction is unnecessary, because baptism is not an act on your part, it is an act on God’s part. Again, look through the eyes of covenant. Every covenant had an appropriate sign of said covenant; a sign of grace. The sign is for our benefit, not God’s, because we are physical creatures that need tangible realities.

God recognizes this and moves through matter, saving us body and soul just as matter and spirit were lost in the Fall. Since faith is a gift from God, how could you ever know you had enough faith to actually be saved? God doesn’t generally tell people directly, and even pastors in most churches recognize the need to tell people after the “sinner’s prayer” that they are saved. In essence, a sign. Except God gave us a sign, and this sign is baptism itself. Baptism is not work on your end, but on God’s end. Faith is what brought you there, baptism is the sign given to us that we may know that God has saved us. Not baptizing your child, then, presumes to know the mind of God, which is a bit theologically dangerous. This is why the Catholic can say that we trust to the mercy of God. And yet, we do not know. Parents leave nothing to chance, especially for their child. Parents do not trust the mercy of God to the point where they presume to know the mind of God. They act as covenantal heads for their infants, and restore the Divine Life to them through the visible sign God has given them, a work on God’s end.

1. You say that you would have rather accepted “we do it because the Church says so.” I hope that you realize the irony of this statement. The Church was first, and compiled the Bible as a testament to Her reality and interaction with God through history. It is our love letter about our beloved, and only we have the meaning of the words. Do you really believe the Church would keep books contrary to the continuous apostolic teaching She had been given? If I found a letter from a father to a son on the ground, and I attempted to argue with one of the relatives of the writer about what it “really” meant, would I not appear foolish? How many people argue with the author of a novel about the themes and agendas of his creation? For a secular author this is not trouble, but if you desire the true meaning of Scripture to come alive for you as it has many of us, you need to be initiated into the mysteries, not vice versa. One will never understand the full depth of the Gospel of John, for instance, unless one is Catholic; unless one has been initiated into the mysteries. Then watch as it all comes alive.
2. In addition to other points above such as the centurion and his servant, or the mother and her demon-possessed daughter, one must consider Colossians 1:24, and other passages about St. Paul about the mystical unity of the Body of Christ. Just as sin can in a mystical sense harm the entire Body, so can redemptive suffering, etc. The entire Church’s faith supplants that of the infant during its baptism, serving as the covenant representative, if you will. This mystical aspect of unity cannot be merely discounted. How can a believing wife sanctify her household? More points to ponder…
3. Lastly, the Didache has been dated by some as early even as 48 AD (prior to the NT even being written) and has the following to say:

“Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” (ch.7)

Add this with another helpful post earlier in the thread about a first century inscription, and the unbroken tradition of the Church, and why would you have any reason to doubt the apostolic nature?

1. Lastly, the Church has the keys. She says to baptize infants. We baptize infants. And we rejoice as another child of God is brought into covenant union with Him.

God Bless.

 

[Mickey]

I find this explanation far more reasonable than clinging to the nebulous word “households” to justify belief in a tradition.

Nebulous?!?! Oh come on now PLeeD!

I’d be more satisfied with the answer that simply says “it’s the teaching of the church, so Catholics do it”.

Actually, the Catholics and the Orthodox Church practice it. It is an apostolic Sacred Tradition handed down from the time of the apostles to this very day.

The attempts that I’ve seen so far to justify it based on scripture are unconvincing.

I am quite surprised by this comment. You have been shown strong implications from the Old and New Testaments. You have been shown consistent teachings from the Holy Fathers. You have been shown no deviance in the historical record. You have been shown that your own understanding of this issue is a 16th century innovation. And yet you remain unconvinced?!?

 

[Mickey]

Lastly, the Church has the keys. She says to baptize infants. We baptize infants. And we rejoice as another child of God is brought into covenant union with Him.

Amen my brother in Christ. And if I may add…the Eastern Churches, (Catholic and Orthodox), administer the three Mysteries of Initiation to the infant usually around 40 days old (Baptism, Chrismation, and Holy Communion). If a non-Orthodox/Catholic could see the countenance of a little baby after they have received these Mysteries/Sacraments, they would no longer think that some odd concept of “age of reason” needs to be observed.

Grace does not discriminate against babies.

Peace

 

[PLeeD]

Nebulous?!?! Oh come on now PLeeD!

All I mean is that the word “household” is less specific than if the text said “adults, children, and infants” were baptized.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to refer to the word “households” to support belief in infant baptism. Even so, can you honestly not see that it’s not so cut and dried as to leave no doubt based only on scripture?

Originally Posted by PLeeD
The attempts that I’ve seen so far to justify it based on scripture are unconvincing.

I am quite surprised by this comment.

You have to understand that after having a particular lifelong view of the use and meaning of baptism, and seeking to validate all spiritual beliefs based on scripture, that it is a hurdle to accept something new that I don’t find to be implicit in scripture.

All of the descriptions of metaphors and allegories, plus ECF references to it, allow me to understand why you believe it. But, the lack of specific instruction to baptize infants IMO calls into question the both the necessity and efficacy of the practice.

I’m not trying to be contrary for the sake of argument. It’s a question of personal conscience and sincerity. I am sincere in the beliefs I have, and I seek to keep that sincerity central to everything I do. It’s difficult to assent to something in which I don’t have sincere belief, because just going through the motions makes me feel like a hypocrite.

 

[NotWorthy]

You have to understand that after having a particular lifelong view of the use and meaning of baptism, and seeking to validate all spiritual beliefs based on scripture, that it is a hurdle to accept something new that I don’t find to be implicit in scripture.

All of the descriptions of metaphors and allegories, plus ECF references to it, allow me to understand why you believe it. But, the lack of specific instruction to baptize infants IMO calls into question the both the necessity and efficacy of the practice.

I’m not trying to be contrary for the sake of argument. It’s a question of personal conscience and sincerity. I am sincere in the beliefs I have, and I seek to keep that sincerity central to everything I do. It’s difficult to assent to something in which I don’t have sincere belief, because just going through the motions makes me feel like a hypocrite.

But that is the gist of the issue. The early Church didn’t have “Scripture to go on” to determine what beliefs and traditions to follow. They only had the teachings of the Apostles. The New Testament never was meant as a Catechism else it would be written just like Leviticus.

So this “all Teachings has to be explicit in Scripture” is a later-edition man-made tradition.

 

[PLeeD]

So this “all Teachings has to be explicit in Scripture” is a later-edition man-made tradition.

The bolded part is not what I believe. That’s why I have no problem with the practice of infant baptism. I do believe that whatever is taught as “necessary and required” to believe should be explicit. That idea is not without scriptural basis:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
*All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
*

I’m not closed to the idea of coming around to a more Catholic or Orthodox view on the matter, but there are challenges. If I ever do, I will have to be able to be 100% sincere about it.