Does the bible have any Infant Baptism passage?

[SPOKENWORD]

MariaG:

Hi Spokenword:wave:

Yes I do know that the Catholic Church does not rebaptize. But I could not find the Bible verse talking of one baptism and so did not know if it was Scripture or Tradition. Thanks for finding the Bible verses

But this brings up an interesting point. According to your beliefs, infants do not need baptism. If we are only supposed to have one baptism, was not the early church teaching falsehood then by teaching infant baptism?

I mean why baptize an infant if it is just a symbolic, public declaration that should only happen once? If baptism is not regenerative, ie only a public declaration, then the appropriate time would be an older child or an adult. But that is not what the early church in 200ad practiced and taught.

How could the early church be wrong in such a basic belief? Either
baptism= born again
or born again is a choice made past the age of reason when we choose to follow Christ by asking Him into our hearts with baptism only being a public declaration, a symbol of our rebirth.

Respectfully, Both cannot be right. So was the early church wrong in 200ad?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Hi Maria. Jesus baptism is not seen in the physical.Its spiritual and it happens inside of us.This is the only baptism ephesians4 talks about.[one baptism.] It requires our free will to recieve it.Babys do not have a free will. Are they excluded? I dont think so because they have not used thier free will so they are excluded by Gods love and mercy. Repentence is required on our part to recieve the fullness of Jesus baptism. Water baptism symbolizes to the community that we have been washed clean from sin and that Jesus is Lord of our life. The water did not save us it was the blood of Jesus Christ that saved us and that was through the baptism of Jesus Christ. God Bless. So was the early church wrong in baptising infants? Well I believe that those infants were under Gods protection whether they were baptised or not. Personally I believe it was a Church tradition instituted by man to welcolme the baby into the community but thats as far as it goes at this stage in the babys life. I personally believe Jesus Baptism requires our free will to recieve Him. God Bless.

 

[ahimsaman72]

MariaG:

Hi:wave:

Sorry, I have been caught up in other posts and kind of lost track of this one.

I just wanted to thank you. For your friendship and your honesty.

From my point of view though, it is not troubling at all. Much of what was written down, was written to clarify that which had been spoken of. Baptism and being born again did not need clarification because the teaching was simple and understood, hence not much needed to be written about it.

It is hard to sometimes remember, but Scripture was not written as a handbook for Christian beliefs, but rather a clarification of beliefs that had been preached. If nothing needed to be clarified on a subject, there was little written.

Around 200ad you had clarifications like, “no you cannot deny infant baptism until the 8th day” and stuff like that.

I pray you will think on this point more.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Always a pleasure to see you on the forum .

What you have said makes much sense. I can accept the logic used here, but still feel that the Scriptures would be clearer on the subject. I agree that the Bible wasn’t meant to be simply a handbook. It is much more than that. There are many doctrines that I feel would still be of upmost importance and would be spoken of clearly if they were to be taught to the faithful with infant baptism being one of them.

Actually, I don’t condemn the practice of infant baptism. I just don’t see it clearly from Scriptures, so I choose not to participate in it for my children. I realize my anabaptist traditional theology colors my view. I don’t discard this teaching completely - so there’s always hope .

And I also thank you for your kindness and honesty. Although we will disagree at times, I know the spirit of peace and love still remains. We are of the same body, after all. The hand cannot say to the leg - I don’t need you. We are all members of one body with Christ as the Head.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

MariaG:

Actually, I am glad you did answer because it kind of feeds from the other question. Since I lost this thread for awhile, I am going to open myself up to the possibility of error.

I do not have time to find it, but doesn’t the Bible speak of only one Baptism? Or is that just in the creed? Someone help me out!

uhoh
times up crying children,

God Bless,
Maria

Yes, there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Ephesians 4:4-6

1. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
2. One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
3. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

This excerpt is from Matthew Henry’s Commentary:

Text: - Ver. 1-6 Nothing is pressed more earnestly in the Scriptures, than to walk as becomes those called to Christ’s kingdom and glory. By lowliness, understand humility, which is opposed to pride. By meekness, that excellent disposition of soul, which makes men unwilling to provoke, and not easily to be provoked or offended. We find much in ourselves for which we can hardly forgive ourselves; therefore we must not be surprised if we find in others that which we think it hard to forgive. There is one Christ in whom all believers hope, and one heaven they are all hoping for; therefore they should be of one heart. They had all one faith, as to its object, Author, nature, and power. They all believed the same as to the great truths of religion; they had all been admitted into the church by one baptism, with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, as the sign of regeneration. In all believers God the Father dwells, as in his holy temple, by his Spirit and special grace.

Peace…

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

Yes, there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Ephesians 4:4-6

1. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
2. One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
3. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

This excerpt is from Matthew Henry’s Commentary:

Text: - Ver. 1-6 Nothing is pressed more earnestly in the Scriptures, than to walk as becomes those called to Christ’s kingdom and glory. By lowliness, understand humility, which is opposed to pride. By meekness, that excellent disposition of soul, which makes men unwilling to provoke, and not easily to be provoked or offended. We find much in ourselves for which we can hardly forgive ourselves; therefore we must not be surprised if we find in others that which we think it hard to forgive. There is one Christ in whom all believers hope, and one heaven they are all hoping for; therefore they should be of one heart. They had all one faith, as to its object, Author, nature, and power. They all believed the same as to the great truths of religion; they had all been admitted into the church by one baptism, with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, as the sign of regeneration. In all believers God the Father dwells, as in his holy temple, by his Spirit and special grace.

Peace…

Matthew Henry errs in only one place. Water baptism is not merely a sign of regeneration but the means of regeneration.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

Matthew Henry errs in only one place. Water baptism is not merely a sign of regeneration but the means of regeneration.

In Christ,
Nancy

Of course, being of the anabaptist tradition, I would agree with Matthew Henry.

And of course this means I’ve fallen into heretical boundaries by listening to a mere theologian and not the infallible Catholic Church magisterium.

Peace…

 

[jphilapy]

Fiat:

We are digressing, though. Do you have an answer as to how we receive the Spirit? If you don’t have an answer, I won’t think any less of you or doubt your sincerity. I’m just interested in seeing whether any Noncatholic can at all explain what they mean when they say things like, “all you have to do is believe.”

Fiat,

In away your answer is at odds here with other catholics who say that you cant explain the sacrament of the Eucharist as it is a mystery. Maybe that isn’t the explanation of the RC but instead is the opinion of an individual member, but assuming that it is the explanation that the RC gives or at least his held by a great many RC members I will say that it shouldn’t be beyond you to at least to allow that receiving the Spirit by believing can be described as a mystery. There is no reason that argument can’t be used both ways.

So how do we receive the Spirit? Wow if Christ can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood then why can’t he just send His Spirit straight into you? The word translated Spirit is also the word used to mean wind. Why can’t you breath it in? If your looking for evidence that it is by faith as you have heard from protestants then here you go:

*Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming: and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And there appeared to them parted tongues, as it were of fire: and it sat upon every one of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost: and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.
*

So how does that passage say they received the Spirit?

And likewise consider this passage:
Act 10:44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.

Also this affirmed by Paul:

*Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? *

Now does that reply from a protestant answer your question.

Jeff

 

[Fiat]

Hi Jeff:

Thank you for your answer. I would have to clarify, though, that the Catholic Church does not teach that the Holy Spirit is confined to the sacraments. The Church understands that God does not circumscribe Himself. However, the Sacraments objectively provide the Holy Spirit. I think that is the distinction between a sacramental faith and a nonsacramental faith.

Your brother
Fiat

 

[jphilapy]

Fiat:

Hi Jeff:

Thank you for your answer. I would have to clarify, though, that the Catholic Church does not teach that the Holy Spirit is confined to the sacraments. The Church understands that God does not circumscribe Himself. However, the Sacraments objectively provide the Holy Spirit. I think that is the distinction between a sacramental faith and a nonsacramental faith.
Fiat

I don’t know what you mean by “objectively provide”. I illustrated that the Holy Spirit was given by means other than the Sacrament. So do you mean that the Holy Spirit is also given in the Sacrament, however can be received without the Sacrament? I believe the RC position is that it can only be received via the sacrament.

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

I don’t know what you mean by “objectively provide”. I illustrated that the Holy Spirit was given by means other than the Sacrament. So do you mean that the Holy Spirit is also given in the Sacrament, however can be received without the Sacrament? I believe the RC position is that it can only be received via the sacrament.

Although the Church is a privileged place for the communication of the Holy Spirit, as Fiat said, paraphrasing my constant refrain: “God is not circumscribed, even by Himself.” In other words, as Scripture tells us, “the spirit bloweth where it listeth.” If God worked ONLY through the Sacraments, how would Paul ever have been converted? How would anybody come to Christ?

This is not to say that we can afford to operate, in the normal course of events, WITHOUT the Church – since Jesus has given her to us as his preferential means of communicating grace. Her sacraments are “real” in the sense that they confer real graces. They are means by which God communicates himself to us in reality – they are not JUST symbols, although they have a symbolic component. This is a very deep and rich apprehension of grace.

 

[jphilapy]

mercygate:

Although the Church is a privileged place for the communication of the Holy Spirit, as Fiat said, paraphrasing my constant refrain: “God is not circumscribed, even by Himself.” In other words, as Scripture tells us, “the spirit bloweth where it listeth.” If God worked ONLY through the Sacraments, how would Paul ever have been converted? How would anybody come to Christ?

Thanks Mercy. One thing that I still don’t understand is if God can and does do it the other way then why are people who choose not to believe that God does it through the sacraments, classified as heretics and thus damned till they change their mind? That means they can only get salvation if they partake in the sacraments although RC believes that God does fill people in other ways.

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

Thanks Mercy. One thing that I still don’t understand is if God can and does do it the other way then why are people who choose not to believe that God does it through the sacraments, classified as heretics and thus damned till they change their mind? That means they can only get salvation if they partake in the sacraments although RC believes that God does fill people in other ways.

Let me try to do this in a way that makes sense. Let me ask you to take off your Protestant hat, and pretend you never heard of Christianity or the Church. Start from a clean slate.

Catholics believe that Jesus himself founded the Church and commissioned that Church to guard his truth. You have probably been through all the Scriptural underpinnings about Jesus breathing on the Apostles and conferring the Holy Spirit upon them for the forgiveness of sins on Easter evening. And you know the Peter-and-the-Keys passage; and you know the promise to send the Holy Spirit to “teach you everythig”; and John 21, where Jesus tells Peter to “tend his sheep,” and you know about the Holy Spirit coming in tongues of fire in Acts . . . all of that, for Catholics, shows that Jesus wanted his Church to be founded on the Apostles, with Peter as the centerpiece. Jesus promised never to forsake her and that the gates of hell should not prevail against her. For Catholics, this means that the Church is a visible, physical entity, not just an invisible “spiritual” thing. Catholics understand the Christ-breathed charism of the Holy Spirit conferred upon the 10 in the upper room on Easter to be sustained and carried on in the successors of the Apostles – the Bishops of the Church.

Therefore, we believe that to be fully in Christ is to be in communion with our brothers and sisters his Apostolic Church.

To choose to be outside of Christ, as understood by us, is to choose madness, or perversity, or sin. People who forsake the Church or who obdurately persist in holding beliefs that are counter to the Gospel as professed by the Church are placing themselves in eternal peril. Are they damned? Only God knows (you have to get into a whole theology of invincible ignorance which mitigates much). But deliberately to deny the Church, is to the Catholic mind, a denial of Christ himself.

That makes sense, doesn’t it? I’m not asking you to buy this; I’m just trying to demonstrate Catholic thinking in a way that is clear. It all hinges up on a bedrock belief that truth exists and that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. It’s all about Jesus.

 

[jphilapy]

mercygate:

That makes sense, doesn’t it? I’m not asking you to buy this; I’m just trying to demonstrate Catholic thinking in a way that is clear. It all hinges up on a bedrock belief that truth exists and that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. It’s all about Jesus.

I won’t comment as to wether that makes sense or not yet as it is a lot for me to think about. However I do keep an open mind and I especially appreaciate you taking the time to explain as opposed to the sometimes ignorant dogmatic approach that some folks take.

Jeff

 

[Deacon2006]

The premise of the question is false because it assumes that a religious community or families should treat infants different then older humans against the wishes of God to bring the little ones to him. Circumcision was the mark of faith yet not one child ever professed that faith prior to circumcision. The question is designed to deny the real meaning of baptism and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in favor of some protestant heresy or another.

God Bless

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Deacon2006:

The premise of the question is false because it assumes that a religious community or families should treat infants different then older humans against the wishes of God to bring the little ones to him. Circumcision was the mark of faith yet not one child ever professed that faith prior to circumcision. The question is designed to deny the real meaning of baptism and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in favor of some protestant heresy or another.

God Bless

Hi Deacon, Again its only our understanding that is the problem. God Bless.

 

[Faithfilled]

It won’t be found in Scripture, but…
.
What human father would withhold from his newborn infant the very best he could offer? What human father would insist that until his child was old enough to decide for himself he wasn’t really part of the father’s family? Until his child was old enough to decide for himself whether he wanted to belong to the father, to be part of the father’s family?

Would our heavenly Father, who loves each of us beyond human comprehension, do less by insisting that Baptism be withheld until a child He has created is old enough to decide for himself?

Through Him, with Him and in Him

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Faithfilled:

It won’t be found in Scripture, but…
.
What human father would withhold from his newborn infant the very best he could offer? What human father would insist that until his child was old enough to decide for himself he wasn’t really part of the father’s family? Until his child was old enough to decide for himself whether he wanted to belong to the father, to be part of the father’s family?

Would our heavenly Father, who loves each of us beyond human comprehension, do less by insisting that Baptism be withheld until a child He has created is old enough to decide for himself?

Through Him, with Him and in Him

If God insisted it ,He would have told us. BUT since it is not clear it is then beyond our comprehension, like you said. What heavenly Father would go against our human will? God Bless…

 

[jphilapy]

SPOKENWORD:

If God insisted it ,He would have told us. BUT since it is not clear it is then beyond our comprehension, like you said. What heavenly Father would go against our human will? God Bless…

Howdy,

I have been doing some study on this and I come to a similar conclusion as SPOKENWORD.

Based on the scriptural evidence I don’t see how the RC comes to its conclusion that water baptism is what brings actual new birth.

First, scripture is clear that it is the Spirit that brings new birth. Secondly scripture is clear that folks received the Spirit seperate from the water baptism, and in at least one case before water baptism.

When a person receives the Spirit they receive circumscison of the heart, they recieve the life of Christ and they are made the sons of God. Now since folks throughout the NT received the Spirit seperate from water baptism this shows they were given new birth seperate from water baptism. And this means that when Corneilius received the Spirit before the water, that he was in effect reborn before receiving water baptism. Now there can’t possibly be two new births.

Now RCs seem to advocate that there are two water baptisms, one is that of John and of repentence and the second is that of the apostles and is for regeneration. I don’t see that in scripture. For example the apostles where baptised by John’s baptism. When Jesus told the apostles to wait for him in Jerusalem and there they would be baptised in the Spirit, Jesus did not tell them to get baptised in water. That is because they were already baptised by water. And if you read the account in acts on the day of pentecost, it tells us what they were doing when they received the Spirit and it was not baptising in water. If John’s baptism was different than the baptism then all who received John’s baptism and not the baptism of the Spirit would have been rebaptised so they could get the baptism that brings new birth. But they werent.

Also regarding the baptism being equivilent to circumcision. If it is equivilent then it is, based on my findings above, only symbolic. I don’t see in scripture where baptism is equated to circumcision. The only thing I see it equated to is regeneration, and this is symbolic based on my findings. The closest thing that is stated to be a equivilent to the fleshly circumcison is the idea that our hearts are circumcised by the Spirit of God. And the scripture also says the Spirit is our seal. This is never used to describe baptism. Also circumcison is called the seal.

If my findings are accurate then I don’t see any support for infant baptism either as in evidence that infants where baptised, and support for the reasoning used by RC.

Jeff

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Now RCs seem to advocate that there are two water baptisms, one is that of John and of repentence and the second is that of the apostles and is for regeneration. I don’t see that in scripture. For example the apostles where baptised by John’s baptism. When Jesus told the apostles to wait for him in Jerusalem and there they would be baptised in the Spirit, Jesus did not tell them to get baptised in water. That is because they were already baptised by water. And if you read the accound in acts on the day of pentecost, it tells us what they were doing when they received the Spirit and it was not baptising in water.

"And he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ And they said, ‘Into John’s baptism.’ Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’ When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:3-5)

Also regarding the baptism being equivilent to circumcision. If it is equivilent then it is, based on my findings above, only symbolic. I don’t see in scripture where baptism is equated to circumcision. The only thing I see it equated to is regeneration. The closest thing that is stated to be a equivilent to the fleshly circumcison is the idea that our hearts are circumcised by the Spirit of God.

“For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” (Col 2:9-11)

 

[jphilapy]

"And he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ And they said, ‘Into John’s baptism.’ Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:3-5)

“For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” (Col 2:9-11)

Thanks sarah. After I made my post I found the verse in acts too.

But what about the fact that the Spirit and the water baptism are seperate showing that it is the Spirit apart from baptism that does the actual regeneration?

Jeff

 

[Fiat]

Hi Jeff:

If you haven’t already, I recommend you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially the following: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1ind.htm

This will clarify what exactly the Catholic position is on baptism.

Secondly, when we as Catholics see the definition of born again in John 3:5, we see that the definition involves two elements: water and spirit. The two go together. Water alone is not sufficient! When I take a dip in Lake Michigan or step in the shower, I am not born again simply because the element of water has touched me. On the other hand, as Catholics, we believe that the Spirit alone is sufficient, and this is why the Catholic Church specifically teaches that God does not circumscribe Himself to the sacraments. Grace is not limited within the Sacraments, but the Spirit is objectively found within the Sacraments. This means that those people outside of the Catholic Church can still have access to the graces of the Holy Spirit; however, their access is a subjective one. When I was a Protestant, I had to rely on my personal experience to know whether or not I had received the Holy Spirit. If I “felt” the Lord’s presence in my heart, for example, I concluded that the Holy Spirit was there with me, and perhaps He was. But the prophet Jeremiah tells us that the heart above all things is deceitful. Who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9). In the Sacraments, however, we can be assured that the Holy Spirit is there OBJECTIVELY. I don’t need to rely on some personal feeling I have in order to assure myself of the Holy Spirit within in. Instead, I can know with absolute certainty that the Holy Spirit has been imparted to me within the Sacrament.

Perhaps the clearest indication of the objective nature of the Sacraments within scripture is found in Acts 8:9-17 and Acts 19:1-7. In the Chapter 19 passage the people are described as “believers” and as “disciples.” In the Acts 8 passage we read that the were people who “accepted the word of God.”

If I were to tell my nonCatholic minister that “I had accepted the word of God, that I was a believer and that I was a disiple of Jesus Christ,” he would likely tell me that I had then been baptized in the Holy Spirit. That I was “born again.” In fact, this is exactly what my nonCatholic minister had told me. HOWEVER, when we read the passages in Acts, we find that these people who “had accepted the Word of God,” and who were “disciples” and who “believed,” had NOT received the Holy Spirit. In fact, they did not receive the Holy Spirit until they had recieved the Sacrament of Confirmation (the laying on of hands). When Peter and John in the first passage and Paul in the second passage confers the Sacrament, the Holy Spirit is given to them objectively.

Your brother,

Fiat