How do Non-Catholics who argue against infant baptism reconcile their position with infant circumcision?

[rcwitness]

Still think it is symbolic, not effectual. Not sure but someone said it better on CAF but that as it is not washing dirt off body it is not washing of sin form souls, for faith in the Blood does that , yet it is for a clean conscience, as when we are obedient.

Faith in His blood requires a person of the age of reason. Faith does not wash our sins, but faith realizes that Jesus made the sufficient sacrifice for our sins. Baptism is receiving the initiation Rite of that forgiveness. It includes water, intention and the name of the Lord (Trinity). Faith brings us to receive His Forgiveness. This can either happen as a child, brought by our faith full parents, or as a person who has been convicted by personal faith to receive.

As for the child, the grace of their Baptism is effectual, but not magical. It does not trump disbelief, but still cooperates with free will, so that the person can be freely convicted to belief.

No , not a mere ritual and yes to obedience(ritual or effectual) irregardless.

Baptism with no effect is merely ritual, no?

I like most of this but the underlined is the most implicit and not explicit in Writ.

Hmmm, I thought that sentence was affirming the stance of Believer’ Baptism. That is, that those, in the Bible accounts, understood what they were receiving.

Ok. You are right that I would say the inner birth is much value, irregardless of water baptism. But yes obedience to the rite is desirable. As to the last verse, you will not perish if you are not baptized. You will perish if you do not believe. Thankfully most who believe are baptized.

I don’t mean to imply that actual “inner-rebirth” is not of value. It is. But it’s not necessarily the “complete” rebirth we are called to. I think we would call it the “conviction” and “belief”. But if the conviction and belief do not include, lead to, and are completed by Sacramental Baptism, the there is something significantly lacking in that persons belief. Whether it is from sin or ignorance, is not always apparent. And if the person dies, in that state, then God knows that answer.

For examples, I can use the washing of the Apostles feet. Peter refused and Jesus said if they did not receive, then Peter would have no part in Him! That sounds extreme, right? Now Peter, of course was acting out of ignorance, but Jesus was telling Him, in person, so Peter accepted.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi Peter,

Only after you explain why females are excluded from Old but not New rite…LOL

I think this supports Infant Baptism more than not.

Women did not actually partake of the Rite, but we’re included through the men of the family. This is obviously an example of the differences between the Laws of the Covenant. But the women never bore the Mark in themselves. They were associated through the men. In the New, the women too, receive the Mark of the Initiation.

 

[angeltime]

Pax! True, Baptism is not a magical potion - and one does not have to “believe or have faith” to receive Baptism. We need to leave more up to God as to what He does with someone’s life when they receive Baptism. Also, the sponsors in a Baptism or Godparents account for something in terms of instruction and nurturing. It is the whole picture and not just the baby or adult involved. If a family decides to have their child Baptized into Christianity and continue with them on their journey leading into other Sacraments during life, then I certainly would never knock it or minimize its value. We also have a responsibility to hand down our faith and traditions and when we let them pass by, they are very hard to get back - because individuals have gone in another and generally busier direction. Best to have a good start and launching into the Sacramental life. (and I don’t say this because all went well for me and/or my family) By the way, one can renounce their Baptism if they so desire, which would be their own decision of course. I don’t know anyone who has, but just that it is possible to do. angeltime

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter,

Only after you explain why females are excluded from Old but not New rite…LOL

Draw!

 

[rcwitness]

Draw!

Women did not have to wait until an age of reason, or until they expressed personal faith. Nor were they regarded as outside the Covenant for not bearing the mark of Circumcision in themselves. So I think it’s hardly a point of “draw”.

The similarity with both marks of the Covenant, we’re that neither guaranteed faithfulness. Yet both guarantee an acceptance and initiation into the Covenant family.

 

[rcwitness]

Pax! True, Baptism is not a magical potion - and one does not have to “believe or have faith” to receive Baptism.

I wouldn’t say this is entirely true. An adult candidate for Baptism is provided the gospel message and must verbally profess it when receiving Baptism. A creed is recited.

 

[meltzerboy]

Thank you in advance for your response.

Putting on my Protestant hat for a moment, I would think that there is significant enough difference between Jewish circumcision and Christian baptism so as not to be obligated to baptize an infant in conformity to the older ritual of infant circumcision. After all, Jewish circumcision is exclusively a male ritual, not a female one, yet that does not mean that women are not regarded as Jewish. In fact, even if a male child is NOT circumcised due to parental disapproval, the status of that child as a Jew remains so long as its mother is Jewish by blood or conversion. I believe this is not the same case for Catholics, who are not theologically born Catholic, but rather regarded as Catholic only by means of baptism in Trinitarian form. But there is no justification for this belief based solely on Jewish teaching. While what I state above does not defend adult baptism, it does reveal that infant baptism is not a necessity with regard to practicing or fulfilling Jewish ritual.

 

[angeltime]

Pax et Bonum! We could keep in mind that we are Baptized into Christ; into the Body of Christ; and this is the new birth - in His spirit and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are no longer outside of the Body of Christ. Again, it is not a magical potion - but an entry point and commitment (beginning with the parents/Godparents) into spiritual life. The Rite formalizes it as a Sacrament, however it is a spiritual bonding to Christ while renouncing Satan. angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[angeltime]

Putting on my Protestant hat for a moment, I would think that there is significant enough difference between Jewish circumcision and Christian baptism so as not to be obligated to baptize an infant in conformity to the older ritual of infant circumcision. After all, Jewish circumcision is exclusively a male ritual, not a female one, yet that does not mean that women are not regarded as Jewish. In fact, even if a male child is NOT circumcised due to parental disapproval, the status of that child as a Jew remains so long as its mother is Jewish by blood or conversion. I believe this is not the same case for Catholics, who are not theologically born Catholic, but rather regarded as Catholic only by means of baptism in Trinitarian form. But there is no justification for this belief based solely on Jewish teaching. While what I state above does not defend adult baptism, it does reveal that infant baptism is not a necessity with regard to practicing or fulfilling Jewish ritual.

Pax! As far as I know from Jewish connections, I could not see Jewish parents not wanting their son circumcised for any reason and it would have to be by the Rabbi or Moil (spell?) and the Jewish ceremony called a Briss. I have also been told and seen that conversion is not looked upon the same way as being “blood” Jewish. Conversion is accepted - from a distance. I too don’t see any connection between Circumcision and Baptism, having different purposes and covenants. Baby boys are circumcised by a doctor every day in the hospital for health and safety reasons. angeltime

 

[meltzerboy]

Pax! As far as I know from Jewish connections, I could not see Jewish parents not wanting their son circumcised for any reason and it would have to be by the Rabbi or Moil (spell?) and the Jewish ceremony called a Briss. I have also been told and seen that conversion is not looked upon the same way as being “blood” Jewish. Conversion is accepted - from a distance. I too don’t see any connection between Circumcision and Baptism, having different purposes and covenants. Baby boys are circumcised by a doctor every day in the hospital for health and safety reasons. angeltime

There are plenty of Jewish parents, though not the majority (yet), who choose not to have their male son circumcised. This is certainly not encouraged by any Jewish denomination; however, that child is still considered Jewish. With regard to converts to Judaism being seen as Jewish, according to rabbinic law, they are EVERY BIT as Jewish as those who are Jewish by blood. There is no such thing as a second-class Jew! However, what INDIVIDUAL Jews might think about a convert in their own family is up to them; but if they fail to accept them as equally Jewish, their behavior is contrary to Jewish law. Further, this is an Orthodox Jewish teaching.

 

[angeltime]

There are plenty of Jewish parents, though not the majority (yet), who choose not to have their male son circumcised. This is certainly not encouraged by any Jewish denomination; however, that child is still considered Jewish. With regard to converts to Judaism being seen as Jewish, according to rabbinic law, they are EVERY BIT as Jewish as those who are Jewish by blood. There is no such thing as a second-class Jew! However, what INDIVIDUAL Jews might think about a convert in their own family is up to them; but if they fail to accept them as equally Jewish, their behavior is contrary to Jewish law. Further, this is an Orthodox Jewish teaching.

Peace…yes, I agree about the opinion about a convert would be a personal one and not Jewish Law. Yes, there may be plenty of Jewish parents who choose not to have their son circumcised, and yes, it is not encouraged by any Jewish denomination. angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[rcwitness]

From Wiki: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism

The first recorded liturgy of baptism, written down by Saint Hippolytus of Rome (170–235) in hisApostolic Tradition, required men, women and children to remove all clothing, including all foreign objects such as jewellery and hair fastenings.[51]

At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water.

When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water.
Then they shall take off all their clothes.

The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.

After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water.

 

[benhur]

Draw!

 

[benhur]

Women did not have to wait until an age of reason, or until they expressed personal faith. Nor were they regarded as outside the Covenant for not bearing the mark of Circumcision in themselves. So I think it’s hardly a point of “draw”.

The similarity with both marks of the Covenant, we’re that neither guaranteed faithfulness. Yet both guarantee an acceptance and initiation into the Covenant family.

Hi rc,

Can still cut or shoot both ways. A child/infant in a christian community/family can be considered covered,sanctified, without the baptismal rite, just as women were in OT without circumcision rite. (Sanctified like disbelieving spouse is sanctified though not a believer/baptized thru believing spouse ).

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Can still cut or shoot both ways. A child/infant in a christian community/family can be considered covered,sanctified, without the baptismal rite, just as women were in OT without circumcision rite. (Sanctified like disbelieving spouse is sanctified though not a believer/baptized thru believing spouse ).

How do you know this? How do you know that those children were “covered/sanctified” without the Baptismal Rite? Women did not partake in the Rite at all, in the old Covenant. It’s not a good comparison. If anything, it supports Baptizing through the faith of parents.

 

[Cathoholic]

**Did women WEAR the sign of the Covenant in the Old Covenant? Clearly not. That was for the males.

Were women Covenanted to God in the Old Covenant? Yes, I believe they were.
**

Genesis 17 shows how the descendants of Abraham were “Covenanted” to God, by having their male children circumcised.

The people were Covenanted to God by having their males wear the sign of the “Covenant” permanently.

(Baptism places an indelible “permanent” mark on the souls of recipients too. Just like cicrcumsion places an indelible permanent sign on the flesh of its recipients)

They just did not wear the sign of the Covenant . . . yet. (In the New Covenant, women too will wear the sign of the Covenant–Baptism, as well as infants YOUNGER than eight days old).

(Interestingly, from listening to Jewish people, it is the Jewish moms that are the MOST COMPULSIVE about having their sons circumcised. Much more so than the Jewish dads.)

GENESIS 17:7a, 10, 12a, 13b-14 7a And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants . . . 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. . . . 12a He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations. . . . 13b So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

But just because only males “among you” wore this sign, you cannot conclude that women were not Covenanted to God through those males.

It was even Moses’ Midianite wife Zipporah that eventually saw to it that their first son was circumcised. And she (correctly) saw a blood connection to that Covenanting . . . via her son’s circumcision.

This from Exodus 4 with parenthetical addition mine . . .

EXODUS 4:23-26

23b . . . “Let my son go that he may serve me”; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.’" 24 At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to kill him (Moses!). 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said,** “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to** me!” 26 So he let him alone. Then it was that she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision.

Now in the New Covenant, ALL wear this sign.

The fulfillment is GREATER that the prefigurement.

In the New Covenant, males AND females, adults AND infants wear this sign, the spiritual sign of the New Covenant.

Now, in the New Covenant, males AND females and adults AND infants and Jew or Greek and slave or free can ALL wear this sign, the spiritual sign of the New Covenant which is the Holy Spirit promised to us through Baptism by the prophets.

EZEKIEL 36:24-28

24 For I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. 28 You shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

 

[Peter_J]

Draw!

Edit: I should add that I’m speaking somewhat loosely there. I don’t think expansion in one regard (moving from a specifically-male practice, i.e. circumcision, in the OT, to men and women alike being baptized) is any reason to think there would be a move toward exclusion in another regard (baptism being for only adults).

Plus, I recall Catholic commentaries on what benhur requested (again, the move from a specifically-male practice, i.e. circumcision, in the OT, to men and women alike being baptized) but don’t have them on hand.

Putting on my Protestant hat for a moment, I would think that there is significant enough difference between Jewish circumcision and Christian baptism so as not to be obligated to baptize an infant in conformity to the older ritual of infant circumcision. After all, Jewish circumcision is exclusively a male ritual, not a female one, yet that does not mean that women are not regarded as Jewish. In fact, even if a male child is NOT circumcised due to parental disapproval, the status of that child as a Jew remains so long as its mother is Jewish by blood or conversion. I believe this is not the same case for Catholics, who are not theologically born Catholic, but rather regarded as Catholic only by means of baptism in Trinitarian form. But there is no justification for this belief based solely on Jewish teaching. While what I state above does not defend adult baptism, it does reveal that infant baptism is not a necessity with regard to practicing or fulfilling Jewish ritual.

See above. But aside from that, the picture of you wearing a Protestant hat makes me think of a great conspiracy of Non-Catholics. (Hmmm, maybe I’ll make that the theme of my next novel.)

 

[benhur]

From Wiki: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism

The first recorded liturgy of baptism, written down by Saint Hippolytus of Rome (170–235) in hisApostolic Tradition, required men, women and children to remove all clothing, including all foreign objects such as jewellery and hair fastenings.[51]

At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water.

When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water.
Then they shall take off all their clothes.

The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.

After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water.

Hi rc,

Good reading thanks. He was certainly strict, some might say a legalist. But for sure might be good evidence for infant baptism in Rome. Yet everything with a grain of salt. He also advocated against any worldly teachers(math,history etc) in the church ,as well as any soldiers. He also explicitly said or referred to the bread as a symbol of the Body and the wine as a symbol, without then further calling them any other reality. As for baptism , fasting was to be done from the evening before all participants remaining together thru the evening, and to exorcise any demons with laying of hands to every participant, and breathing on them and sealing their forehead and ears and nose,they all had to get naked, nude, and thrice be dunked, and with anointing with exorcism oil and finally thanksgiving oil after the rite. He also advocated for a 3 year catachesis but could be circumvented by desire and good spiritual behavior.

So apparently some of his liturgy/practice is kept and some not and that differently according to different churches. Like the CC retains some of that , as do P’s. We pick and choose differently.

For sure one can not deny that the discussion we have today ,was also discussed in his day.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Good reading thanks. He was certainly strict, some might say a legalist. But for sure might be good evidence for infant baptism in Rome. Yet everything with a grain of salt. He also advocated against any worldly teachers(math,history etc) in the church ,as well as any soldiers. He also explicitly said or referred to the bread as a symbol of the Body and the wine as a symbol, without then further calling them any other reality. As for baptism , fasting was to be done from the evening before all participants remaining together thru the evening, and to exorcise any demons with laying of hands to every participant, and breathing on them and sealing their forehead and ears and nose,they all had to get naked, nude, and thrice be dunked, and with anointing with exorcism oil and finally thanksgiving oil after the rite. He also advocated for a 3 year catachesis but could be circumvented by desire and good spiritual behavior.

So apparently some of his liturgy/practice is kept and some not and that differently according to different churches. Like the CC retains some of that , as do P’s. We pick and choose differently.

For sure one can not deny that the discussion we have today ,was also discussed in his day.

Blessings

Thanks for expounding on Hippolytus! He even criticized the popes of his day, but is believed to have reconciled himself before his death. But we don’t know that, or if the popes accepted his criticism as valid.

Yes, he seemed to be quite strict. But the tradition of Baptizing infants was apparently practiced, and I would ask where the argument of this first appeared? When, and who, first contested Infant Baptism?

As for the customs you listed, I’m sure each could be addressed properly, such as the “naked” instruction. I’m not sure that meant “completely naked”. Perhaps it was the main, outer garments?

 

[angeltime]

Peace…it is believed that the Jewish “mother” carries and hands-on the faith to her children. It is seen as a responsibility she carries out faithfully in the family. So, this is why she would be more concerned about circumcision, bar mitz vah, and a Jewish wedding. Not that the father isn’t concerned at all - but just that the mother will see it through and bring proper awareness, teaching and involvement to the children.

A Catholic priest once told me that Baptism is Circumcision of the Heart. We know in his Ministry, Jesus went for the heart - not the head - not the flesh… angeltime