Help with defending infant baptism

[Porknpie]

I appreciate your reconsiderations. It does seem you are saying exactly how it works, despite it being shown that it can work more broadly than you state. I have given my considerations of said scriptures and do not isolate them from other scriptures.For sure it s not supportive of infant baptism being regenerating per my understanding.

Poco -

What are your thoughts of the early Church on how they viewed infant baptism? They use the words “born again to God” … “the Church received from the APOSTLES the tradition of baptizing infants”…“for the remission of sins…even to infants” and that baptism of infants SANCTIFIES.

“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.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church,** Baptism is given even to infants.** And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day.…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

**“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified **from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

"‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity." Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).

And Augustine notes…baptism of infants…a sacrament…to do so handed down the by apostles.

“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 4:24:31 (A.D. 400).

The Church certainly saw baptism as regenerative. Why would you not want to follow that which was passed on by the apostles?

 

[pocohombre]

Poco -

What are your thoughts of the early Church on how they viewed infant baptism? They use the words “born again to God” … “the Church received from the APOSTLES the tradition of baptizing infants”…“for the remission of sins…even to infants” and that baptism of infants SANCTIFIES.

“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.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church,** Baptism is given even to infants.** And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, **so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified **within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

**“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified **from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

"‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity." Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).

And Augustine notes…baptism of infants…a sacrament…to do so handed down the by apostles.

“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 4:24:31 (A.D. 400).

The Church certainly saw baptism as regenerative. Why would you not want to follow that which was passed on by the apostles?

Is there not a difference between sanctified and regenerated, even remission of sins ? Remember the unbelieving spouse is sanctified and children made holy in marriage to a believer.That does not say obviously that the spouse or children are regenerated. So sanctified I have agreed with before,but not regenerated with infants. So your quotes bare this out except possibly for Iraneus.

 

[panevino]

Matthew 3:16-17
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Does above verse point to action of HS and a foreshadow of entrance to sonship of all baptised

 

[pocohombre]

Matthew 3:16-17
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Does above verse point to action of HS and a foreshadow of entrance to sonship of all baptised

Perhaps .Good scripture,but I would be careful to make a box out of it alone.For instance, was Jesus pleasingly God’s Son before the baptism? Did He not grow in “spirit” before His baptism? For sure God is pleased with one’s baptism, and for sure some have received the gift of the HS after baptism (some before also). John’s baptism was for preparation,repentance for the coming Messiah,not for regeneration.

 

[panevino]

Perhaps .Good scripture,but I would be careful to make a box out of it alone.For instance, was Jesus pleasingly God’s Son before the baptism? Did He not grow in “spirit” before His baptism? For sure God is pleased with one’s baptism, and for sure some have received the gift of the HS after baptism (some before also). John’s baptism was for preparation,repentance for the coming Messiah,not for regeneration.

I understand. I am out of the loop with this thread. I’d say that the descent of the HS shows transformation of johns baptism or rather initiation of Christian baptism.

 

[Darryl_B]

Is there not a difference between sanctified and regenerated, even remission of sins ? Remember the unbelieving spouse is sanctified and children made holy in marriage to a believer.That does not say obviously that the spouse or children are regenerated. So sanctified I have agreed with before,but not regenerated with infants. So your quotes bare this out except possibly for Iraneus.

Hi Pocohombre. Regeneration is a strange word these days because it gives the perception of youthful looking skin. Regeneration in the Bible is actually a change of lineage, it is a change of lineage to son of God. Sanctification means belonging to God, and all that He is. I don’t see much difference between the two except for the following.

You were washed (regeneration), you were sanctified (confirmation), you were justified (the sum of the previous, two parts body ownership and soul ownership) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (washing of regeneration) and by the Spirit of God (renewal of Holy Spirit).

 

[catherinemcm]

I am a Protestant, wanting to go to my calling of being Catholic however. I was brought up Methodist and I was Christened in the name of our Lord. I do not see the difference. God does not judge. You do need to take your child into the water and wash them of sin but it makes no difference. God is happy you love him and offer you child to be like him <3

 

[pocohombre]

I am a Protestant, wanting to go to my calling of being Catholic however. I was brought up Methodist and I was Christened in the name of our Lord. I do not see the difference. God does not judge. You do need to take your child into the water and wash them of sin but it makes no difference. God is happy you love him and offer you child to be like him <3

Welcome.We do all agree I hope that of course we bring up the child in admonition in the Lord .Many churches call this or do a “dedication” of the infant while others baptize.Do you consider yourself born again and is it because of your baptism?

 

[pocohombre]

Hi Pocohombre. Regeneration is a strange word these days because it gives the perception of youthful looking skin. Regeneration in the Bible is actually a change of lineage, it is a change of lineage to son of God. Sanctification means belonging to God, and all that He is. I don’t see much difference between the two except for the following.

You were washed (regeneration), you were sanctified (confirmation), you were justified (the sum of the previous, two parts body ownership and soul ownership) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (washing of regeneration) and by the Spirit of God (renewal of Holy Spirit).

Thank you. I also believe regeneration is same as born again.You say change in lineage, to be a son of God. I think it is same thing in that old lineage was son of Satan as per Genesis)“your seed”(Satan’s) and Eve’s seed.Children of believers of His promises, and unbelievers. To be a son of God you must have a rebirthed spirit, that was dead in sin.It is more than being justifed (forgiven), but given a new nature to indeed be “God-like”.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, All

For those who think the Greek word ‘baptize’ (also ‘baptisma’, and ‘baptismos’ for baptism) means to dip and certainly it does. However, it also means to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to MAKE CLEAN WITH WATER, to wash ones self, or to bathe. If you wish to use the word ‘dip’ as the only meaning of baptism, then to ‘dip’ ones hand or foot in the water would be correct also. So is the purpose of Baptism to clean our bodies by immersion, or to ‘make clean’ our souls and make them pleasing to GOD, by the removal of original sin?

“Baptism first of all removes original sin. For adults all sin is removed. As we go through life if any say they have no sin, well I suppose it is possible but unlikely. So Scripture clearly states Jesus, has come for the lost not the righteous; And then as we grow in knowledge we have confession, Euchrist and Conformation, if we truly believe.”

May God Bless All

 

[MLR2MLB]

I’m also defending babies being baptized. I was told it is non-biblical to have a baby baptized because the baby does not know what is going on and cannot accept God if he/she does not know. Was also told: the individual needs to request and asked to be saved when they are ready and then they will be baptized.
I have had to defend it. I used the scripture and words of wisdom you all provided. I also stated that a Baptist way isn’t a Catholics way. I also mentioned that Catholics do not stop at baptism. We do first holy communion, confirmation, all while going to mass and religious education classes.
It really bothers me when some individuals state baptizing a baby is non-biblical.

 

[Porknpie]

I’m also defending babies being baptized. I was told it is non-biblical to have a baby baptized because the baby does not know what is going on and cannot accept God if he/she does not know. Was also told: the individual needs to request and asked to be saved when they are ready and then they will be baptized.
I have had to defend it. I used the scripture and words of wisdom you all provided. I also stated that a Baptist way isn’t a Catholics way. I also mentioned that Catholics do not stop at baptism. We do first holy communion, confirmation, all while going to mass and religious education classes.
It really bothers me when some individuals state baptizing a baby is non-biblical.

MLR -

Good for you! But…don’t be “bothered”…you are terrific in having an explanation to help some non-Catholic understand that infant baptism was taught by Christ to the apostles and from the apostles to their descendants. This is reflected in the Written Word of God and Tradition.

A few of the early Church Fathers on the subject below. As Cyprian says…the debate on when to baptize infants was on day 2 or 3 or day 8 as in the case of circumcision. No where in the Church did anyone practice the protestant thought of delaying baptism until the age of reason. This would have provoked the following response My favorite though is Origen, speaking that the Catholic Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants. Of course to complete the thought…the apostles received this direction from Jesus himself.

**“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” **Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

I’ve said this before, next to the Eucharistic meal only being “symbolic”, infant baptism is the most twisted man-made doctrine to come out of the Catholic bible. Galatians 1:8 warns that man-made doctrines will occur…this is no exception.

 

[fbl9]

Maybe I am just stupid, I can’t understand why some claim that baptism needs to be done a certain way and time, yet say that the baptism is utterly useless to the person being baptised?

 

[chero23]

God wanted infants to be circumcised in the OT so that they could be united with him in his convenant. The male infants were not asked, they didn’t say, yes I confess god is my lord and savior. Remember god tells Abraham this is something that must be done with all generations.

In the NT when Jesus says let the children come to me, even infants being brought to him, he says, let them come to me as the kingdom of god is made up like ppl like them. Then in John 3:3-5, he says clearly you must be born again from water to have the kingdom of god.

Now if you look at the 3 or 4 verses in the NT were it states that the whole family was baptized, in both the OT and NT, families means everyone. From the elders to the little ones.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is not baptism non-private ? Were not circumcisions,and baptisms public,if not communal within the synagogue/church? Was there not a proclamation of something,of a covenant,of a name(s) above all other names. As far as the HS, yes that must happen, an indwelling and a gifting.Does baptism in of itself give you either ? Perhaps,but not always as perhaps with the apostles and with Cornelius. Not sure but CC says something of regeneration at baptism and HS gifting at confirmation. What about Catholic charismatics? That is another topic, baptism in the HS. I have stated baptism was thought of as for remission of sins, but that the giving of the HS is separate.

The Philippian Jailer blew it. He missed a great chance to witness to Jesus. Well, here…let’s review the passage first:

Acts 16:25-34
25About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. 26Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everybody’s chains came loose. 27The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28But Paul shouted, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!” 29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.

As the scriptures clearly indicate, the Philippian jailer and the adult members of his household who were old enough to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and savior were already saved by their faith alone. (Regretfully, Luke was sloppy in his recounting of this incident and was not more careful to avoid giving the impression that minors may have been baptized, also.)

Getting baptized “immediately”, “at that hour of the night”, that is, “about midnight”, was a missed opportunity. The jailer should have waited a few weeks or until the next meeting of the local assembly when he could have been baptized in front of the entire congregation as a symbol of his salvation. This ceremony would have been more edifying for those who were already members of the Church.

I mean, why the rush? There was no time to witness to his friends with the exact date that he “got saved” or to invite them to attend the ceremony, no time to have his name printed in the bulletin, no party afterward…just a quick slam-dunk and it was over.

This whole, distasteful episode is at odds with how things would be done in the typical Bible church today. Why, the conversion of such an important official as the administrator of the local correctional facility would be quite a feather in the cap of any modern evangelist…what was Paul thinking?

Maybe he was thinking of his own conversion and how important it is to have one’s sins washed away in the waters of baptism (cf. Acts 22:16). After meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus, Saul was struck blind for three days, and he fasted during that time. Then Ananias came to see him. Ananias did not preach the gospel to him nor did he ask Saul to recite the sinner’s prayer nor accept Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior. Instead, Ananias said simply, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name’ " (Acts 9:16)

Interesting. You can bet that Paul already believed at this point. After three days of fasting, Paul didn’t want to grab a bite to eat before trotting down to the local synagogue for a symbolic baptism to testify to the inner transformation that had already occurred within. No! He got up, and got baptized in order to have his sins washed away. Luke, the travelling companion of Paul, obviously captures Paul’s theology in this passage. Baptism washes away sin.