Help with defending infant baptism

[just_came_back]

Pocohombre, Thank you for your replies and explainations. You bring up good points.
Here is a response to some of your questions.

There are some christian denominations that accept the need for baptism the same as Catholics.

But more often than not, many denominations hold that to enter the kindgdom of Jesus, all one must do is accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour to be saved, and that baptism is not necessary, but that it is only an ordinance, that is only done because it is mentioned in the bible. So the Baptists teach that baptism is not necessary, at least a lot of them.

Since infants can’t take Jesus as their personal Lord and Saviour to be saved, then all infants who die cannot be saved by this logic.

In addition the phrase, “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour to be saved” is nowhere to be found in the bible. But baptism of water and the spirit is specified by Jesus himself to Nichodemous as being “born again”, and necessary to enter the kingdom of God. John 3.

And as someone above mentioned, nowhere in the bible does it say that babies and children cannot be baptised. So why then is it said that they may not be baptised? Because they cannot speak for themselves to ask for it? By that logic, does this mean that they will only receive what they ask for and not be given what they need unless they ask?

Just some thoughts and questions.​

“Baptized in water, sealed by the Spirit, cleansed by the blood of Christ our King.” (hymn)

And let the church say amen!!!

here’s the altar call heresy and how it beganthis is from an anglican site as well mind you)
sanctusblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/altar-calls-and-scary-heretics-the-excesses-of-perfectionism/

 

[chero23]

Repent and be baptized said Peter. Does an 8 day old infant “repent”?

Look at psalm 51:4-5 I believe it is, we’re it says, from my mothers womb im a sinner. And like I said, what Paul says I believe, bc of the sin of one man we must all die. Infants can and have died unfortunately. It’s all bc of that original sin. We have paid for what happened with Adam and Eve did.

Poco hombre, idk if your dad or not, but if your kids are sick and you feel they need to go to the hospital you don’t ask him or her do you want to go. No, as the adult you make that decision, for their well being. Is the same thing, you do what is best for them.

Remember Paul tells us hold fast to the the traditions of the apostles. Well for over 2,000 yrs infant baptism has been practiced, theirs even writings by men who were taught by the apostles themselves who say that infant baptism is necessary.

It’s incredible how Protestants do not read early church fathers material, these men were there early on, at the scene of the crime, passing on that beautiful tradition the apostles were giving on to them so we can have it today. Poco hombre ill tell you what I tell my gf, you have no problem listening to your pastor, he talk as though he was next to the apostles back in the yr 40, why not read how the early Christians did it. Which btw was and still is the Catholic Church.

 

[pocohombre]

why is everyone changing topic slightly and saying some are arrogantly against children coming to Christ, being baptized ? The topic is infants.The topic is infants as in 7,8 days old.not someone 5 or 10 years old.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

why is everyone changing topic slightly and saying some are arrogantly against children coming to Christ, being baptized ? The topic is infants.The topic is infants as in 7,8 days old.not someone 5 or 10 years old.

Let’s end this fairly quick.

A child is a child is a child. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has been baptizing children in all their shapes and forms since Pentecost. Your personal opinion and interpretation is just that, just like mine. Christ’s Church has interpreted this matter under the protection of the Holy Spirit. Anything different is against the deposit of Faith.

Scriptures are not to be interpreted outside the protection of Christ’s Church.

 

[pocohombre]

Let’s end this fairly quick.

A child is a child is a child. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has been baptizing children in all their shapes and forms since Pentecost. Your personal opinion and interpretation is just that, just like mine. Christ’s Church has interpreted this matter under the protection of the Holy Spirit. Anything different is against the deposit of Faith.

Scriptures are not to be interpreted outside the protection of Christ’s Church.

Fairy tale ? I don’t think so. Do you have any twelve year old infants ?. If so then no one is against “infant” baptism and why all the fuss . …It is not so clear cut just what they did and didn’t do, what was customary, what was optional, what was mandatory and what was taught, and even if there was one teaching authority on it beyond scripture or apostolic documentation in the first century.

 

[Church_Militant]

I have a couple of articles on my blog that can help with this.

The Case For Infant Baptism
Baptism~ Necessary or Not?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What fuss? Straight, direct and to the point.

Definition of CHILD (Merriam-Webster)

1
a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant
2
a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age

Again, it is your personal opinion. None of the Apostolic Churches agree with you or any other innovative and mislead interpreter of Scriptures.

If it wasn’t a practice, then why did Tertulian voice his opinion against it? (160-230 AD), and he objected to the practice of baptizing infants because of the heretical idea that sin after baptism was nearly unforgivable.

Even Luther and Calvin did not object it. It was Zwingli (1484–1531) 1,500 years later that brought this heresy upon the earth.

So

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Don’t even try.

 

[Matthew8]

Just a little history. The ‘anabaptists’ were big on baptizing people before they died. They also denied infant baptism. So that possibly where some of your protestant friends get their belief from.

 

[pocohombre]

What fuss? Straight, direct and to the point.

Definition of CHILD (Merriam-Webster)

1
a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant
2
a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age

Wikipedia says it is a very young child or baby,typically between birth and 1 year old.Medical dict. -birth to 1 year old.Business dict-birth to 2 years old.Infant ,from latin *infans *meaning incapable of speech.

 

[pocohombre]

Just a little history. The ‘anabaptists’ were big on baptizing people before they died. They also denied infant baptism. So that possibly where some of your protestant friends get their belief from.

Maybe.Thanks. I am wondering if the “aversion” to the rote baptsim of newborns arose out of the observation of the inadequacies, inconsistencies between the rite and it’s effectiveness in producing spiritual christians. That is, that you could not tell good people from bad people by whether they were baptized.That something more is required for true regeneration and a true spiritual walk. A little bit with what happened with circumcision in OT. Remember to the greatest faith Jesus found was in an uncircumcised Roman soldier.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Wikipedia says it is a very young child or baby,typically between birth and 1 year old.Medical dict. -birth to 1 year old.Business dict-birth to 2 years old.Infant ,from latin *infans *meaning incapable of speech.

How new and different… another argument with protestantism that leads to the post-modernist practice of deconstructing words enough to make them mean what fits our personal ideas.

M-W > Wiki

And more importantly: Church Tradition > New interpretations outside the Church.

You can deconstruct words all you want. Thankfully you can’t deconstruct history, you can only ignore it.

The practice of baptizing infants has been present in the Church from the Apostles. That Tertulian is arguing against it as early as the 2nd and 3rd centuries clearly demonstrates that it was present in Christ’s Church.

Punto y se acabó!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Maybe.Thanks. I am wondering if the “aversion” to the rote baptsim of newborns arose out of the observation of the inadequacies, inconsistencies between the rite and it’s effectiveness in producing spiritual christians. That is, that you could not tell good people from bad people by whether they were baptized.That something more is required for true regeneration and a true spiritual walk. A little bit with what happened with circumcision in OT. Remember to the greatest faith Jesus found was in an uncircumcised Roman soldier.

You should seriously read:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

It will help you understand better the Catholic position.

 

[pocohombre]

How new and different… another argument with protestantism that leads to the post-modernist practice of deconstructing words enough to make them mean what fits our personal ideas.

M-W > Wiki

And more importantly: Church Tradition > New interpretations outside the Church.

You can deconstruct words all you want. Thankfully you can’t deconstruct history, you can only ignore it.

The practice of baptizing infants has been present in the Church from the Apostles. That Tertulian is arguing against it as early as the 2nd and 3rd centuries clearly demonstrates that it was present in Christ’s Church.

Punto y se acabó!

You have only assumptions that newborns were baptized by John the baptist ,or by the apostles.The best you have is "children/descendants and households being baptized. The preponderance of scripture about whom ,and why and when baptism should occur rules out newborns. That it is a practice by some ,now and even by Tertullian’s time proves nothing. What we are discussing now was not written about by the apostles or fathers of first one hundred and fifty years. Furthermore church architecture/design reflects the gradual growth of the practice thru the centuries.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

You have only assumptions that newborns were baptized by John the baptist ,or by the apostles.The best you have is "children/descendants and households being baptized. The preponderance of scripture about whom ,and why and when baptism should occur rules out newborns. That it is a practice by some ,now and even by Tertullian’s time proves nothing. What we are discussing now was not written about by the apostles or fathers of first one hundred and fifty years. Furthermore church architecture/design reflects the gradual growth of the practice thru the centuries.

Lev. 12:3 - The circumcision of eight-day old babies was the way of entering into the Old Covenant.

**Col. 2:11-12 **- Baptism is the new “circumcision” for entering the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults.

Eph. 1:1,6:1 - Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and among these were the children he exhorted to obedience. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Justin speaks of all those who were made pure since childhood. One only becomes pure through the power of baptism washing away original sin -
"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples* from childhood, remain pure** and at the age of sixty or seventy years…" *
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology (A.D. ~110-165)

Irenaeus was a hearer of St John before the apostle died. He was also a friend of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John -
*“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” *
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (A.D. ~180)
*
“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” *
St. Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition (A.D. ~215)

*“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” *
Origen, Homily on Romans (A.D. ~244)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You have only assumptions that newborns were baptized by John the baptist ,or by the apostles.The best you have is "children/descendants and households being baptized. The preponderance of scripture about whom ,and why and when baptism should occur rules out newborns. That it is a practice by some ,now and even by Tertullian’s time proves nothing. What we are discussing now was not written about by the apostles or fathers of first one hundred and fifty years. Furthermore church architecture/design reflects the gradual growth of the practice thru the centuries.

You need to go back and read the thread again. I have no assumptions. I have the Catholic Church of the Living God teachings and Her Church Fathers writings. In Scriptures there are things that are implicit and things that are explicit.

You have failed to provide evidence for your personal point of view. 1,500 years without the Catholic Church of the Living God saying that you can not baptize infants stand against your personal opinion and that of anti-Catholic propaganda.

Further, you have no Scriptures without the authority of the Catholic Church. It was to Her that the Holy Spirit gave the deposit of Faith for all ages.

Also, preponderance of evidence is used in Civil Court, in some cases the Civil Court is used because there is not enough evidence for a Criminal trial where you need to have probable cause, which is a lot stronger than preponderance. You don’t even have one single exhibit to present for the prohibition of baptizing infants…

2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. **So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. **17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

 

[pocohombre]

Lev. 12:3 .

**Col. 2:11-12 **

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Poor interpretation .The circumcision is Christ and his baptism of deathprimarily ,perhaps secondarily of ours. Not a great correlation of OT and NT and circumcision and baptism.
Very weak ,says nothing of baptism , not to mention newborns .Are newborns exhorted to obey parents?

I think this thread has run its course. We have presented our evidence in this thread from holy scripture, and from the first Christians. Several historical accounts from AD 100-250. You should pray on it, and ask God to guide you to the Truth.

 

[fred_conty]

pocohombre, thank you for your replies, they were quite good and make us reflect on the wonderful treasure that God has given to us.

The reason for baptism of babies is to put them in sanctifying grace, which is the life of God within them. As Paul mentioned, “Christ lives in me.” The baby becomes a member of the body of Christ on earth, and a temple of the holy spirit. Noone has this condition except those who are baptised in water and the spirit, they must be “born again” as Jesus said to Nichodemous. John 3.

So the baby, tho it is beautiful because it’s soul is created fresh by God, does not have his divine life in that soul. And when it is baptised, the Father can say again “this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased”, as he said of His Son Jesus at his baptism.

It is true that we cannot absolutely prove from logic in using the bible that a baby must be baptised, but the evidence is certainly pointing in that direction very strongly.

The other consideration is that the church has always maintained that its’ tradition of belief is broader than scripture, and that scripture is a part of its’ tradition but not all inclusive of it. So while we value the tradition found in the bible, the church has all truth handed to her for our sanctity and correct understanding of God’s desires.

Just some reflections.​

“In him we live, we move and have our being. In him the Christ, in him the King. Jesus the Lord.” (hymn)

 

[pocohombre]

Lev. 12:3

"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples* from childhood, remain pure*** and at the age of sixty or seventy years…" Not sure what he meant by “pure”, that it is due to baptism,for we are also washed by the water of the Word. I take it for what it says, children believed, and probably baptized but don’t see newborns in it. I see a child who can be a “disciple”.

Irenaeus was a hearer of St John before the apostle died. He was also a friend of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John -
"For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Poco,

You just don’t want to see. I pray for the spirit of rebellion to be lifted from you.