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

[angeltime]

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?

Peace…yes, I agree that it was probably not completely naked - just outer garments. In fact, a special white garment/robe. ?? angeltime

 

[rcwitness]

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?

From New Advent:
According to theinscriptionover the grave ofHippolytus composed byPope Damasus, he was a follower of theNovatianschismwhile apresbyter, but before his death exhorted his followers to become reconciled with theCatholicChurch*(Ihm, “Damasi epigrammata”, Leipzig, 1895, 42, n.37).

 

[Abba]

Putting on my Protestant hat for a moment

Ooh, you have one of those? I have always wanted a Russian hat, even if I just wear it in Saint Petersburg. This reminds me of my Russian, Russian Literature professor getting all red and pounding on his podium: Saint Petersburg! Will be Saint Petersburg! Once again! Btw, do you have a Catholic hat? I am sure it fits you well.

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.

Well, I don’t want to spoil the party. People are having too much fun and we are not going to run out of popcorn anytime soon. If the machine breaks don’t worry, Adamhovey1988 will lend us the one he got for Christmas. But, what I had in mind, are the Bible Christians who condemn Catholics for baptizing their children who as infants are incapable of deciding if they want to participate in that religion or not. I have heard this argument and I wondered how they reconcile OT circumcision with Catholics baptizing their infant children. It would seem as circumcising a baby involves the same religious assumption of parental authority involved in infant baptism. It seems to me, that those who argue parents have no right to decide for their children would also have a problem with OT circumcision of infants. I just wondered how they reconcile the two.

Happy New Year 2017 to all!

God bless.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, I don’t want to spoil the party. People are having too much fun and we are not going to run out of popcorn anytime soon. If the machine breaks don’t worry, Adamhovey1988 will lend us the one he got for Christmas. But, what I had in mind, are the Bible Christians who condemn Catholics for baptizing their children who as such, as incapable of deciding if they want to participate in that religion or not. I have heard this argument and I wondered how they reconcile OT circumcision with Catholics baptizing their infant children. It would seem as circumcising a baby involves the religious assumption of parental authority involved in infant baptism. It seems to me, that those who argue parents have no right to decide for their children would also have a problem with OT circumcision of infants.

Well, I don’t think it’s that simple. The Scriptures are clear about Circumcision given to infant boys (eighth day). But New Testament Scripture is surprisingly (to me, anyhow) unclear (explicit) regarding Infant Baptism. I think a decent case can be made for both parties using Scripture alone. I’m certain Scripture is not the only source the Church uses to maintain her position. It is clear that the majority of the Father’s testify to the practice and interpretation as Apostolic.

 

[Abba]

Well, I don’t think it’s that simple. The Scriptures are clear about Circumcision given to infant boys (eighth day). But New Testament Scripture is surprisingly (to me, anyhow) unclear (explicit) regarding Infant Baptism. I think a decent case can be made for both parties using Scripture alone. I’m certain Scripture is not the only source the Church uses to maintain her position. It is clear that the majority of the Father’s testify to the practice and interpretation as Apostolic.

In both instances, it is still a religious decision being made for the child. As for ‘Christians’ Jesus said: Let the children come to me. In order to obey His mandate, we must baptize our children.

 

[benhur]

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?

yeah, I thought the same thing , like maybe that meant only outer garments taken off, but have no reference to that. Plus he worded it three different ways: “nude, naked, and all clothes off”, and wrote in Greek , so probably meant stark naked. Weird, for our times.

Do not have much to address your good point of when infant baptism was challenged.I knew when I posted that one could rightly ask about it. I have been reading about Augustine and he does cite tradition , but not saying if it was common or not. Apparently it was not a custom in Africa. Augustine struggles and actually grows in his baptismal thesis over decades. As one writer points out the liturgy is geared towards a believers baptism, hence the oddity of third party spokesperson.

here is a Calvin site, where he defends infant baptism. Hard to prove. He cites John the baptist in the womb as having spiritual implications, or sensitivity at that age, so why not baptize. But one could just as easily say , he was spiritually insightful in the womb, without any circumcision or rite . Cuts both ways. No silver bullet answer.

reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html

Blessings

 

[benhur]

In both instances, it is still a religious decision being made for the child. As for ‘Christians’ Jesus said: Let the children come to me. In order to obey His mandate, we must baptize our children.

Hi Abba,

well for many they dedicate their children,infants, and as they grow instruct them on the ways of the Lord. That is how they “suffer the children to come to Jesus”

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Ooh, you have one of those? I have always wanted a Russian hat, even if I just wear it in Saint Petersburg. This reminds me of my Russian, Russian Literature professor getting all red and pounding on his podium: Saint Petersburg! Will be Saint Petersburg! Once again! Btw, do you have a Catholic hat? I am sure it fits you well.

Well, I don’t want to spoil the party. People are having too much fun and we are not going to run out of popcorn anytime soon. If the machine breaks don’t worry, Adamhovey1988 will lend us the one he got for Christmas. But, what I had in mind, are the Bible Christians who condemn Catholics for baptizing their children who as infants are incapable of deciding if they want to participate in that religion or not. I have heard this argument and I wondered how they reconcile OT circumcision with Catholics baptizing their infant children. It would seem as circumcising a baby involves the same religious assumption of parental authority involved in infant baptism. It seems to me, that those who argue parents have no right to decide for their children would also have a problem with OT circumcision of infants. I just wondered how they reconcile the two.

Happy New Year 2017 to all!

God bless.

Good humor Abba,

I took a first draft stab at it post 98. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14371858&postcount=98

How about this: females were not circumcised in OT, but were still covenant partakers , thru their parents. I think those that do not baptize their children apply similar principle, that their children are “sanctified” by their believers baptism.

Blessings Happy new year to you too !!!:tiphat::dancing:

 

[rcwitness]

Good humor Abba,

I took a first draft stab at it post 98.

How about this: females were not circumcised in OT, but were still covenant partakers , thru their parents. I think those that do not baptize their children apply similar principle, that their children are “sanctified” by their believers baptism.

Blessings

But under this paradigm, they would have no need to ever Baptize at all…

 

[angeltime]

Ooh, you have one of those? I have always wanted a Russian hat, even if I just wear it in Saint Petersburg. This reminds me of my Russian, Russian Literature professor getting all red and pounding on his podium: Saint Petersburg! Will be Saint Petersburg! Once again! Btw, do you have a Catholic hat? I am sure it fits you well.

Well, I don’t want to spoil the party. People are having too much fun and we are not going to run out of popcorn anytime soon. If the machine breaks don’t worry, Adamhovey1988 will lend us the one he got for Christmas. But, what I had in mind, are the Bible Christians who condemn Catholics for baptizing their children who as infants are incapable of deciding if they want to participate in that religion or not. I have heard this argument and I wondered how they reconcile OT circumcision with Catholics baptizing their infant children. It would seem as circumcising a baby involves the same religious assumption of parental authority involved in infant baptism. It seems to me, that those who argue parents have no right to decide for their children would also have a problem with OT circumcision of infants. I just wondered how they reconcile the two.

Happy New Year 2017 to all!

God bless.

Pax et Bonum! I am concerned we are getting away too much from the possibility that a child being baptized or circumcised at his parent’s discretion, could be a good thing. Why? The family! It is important that a child has a sense of belonging and sharing of his faith with others - starting at an early age if possible. The child needs prayer, grace, bonding and security to get launched properly. Could this be why we have so many young children on the streets? taking drugs? glued to computers? feelings of isolation? and much, much more…the family is important and I think if the child grows to dislike what his parents have done that much, he can take a break from it - check it out farther - leave it - return to it - that is a far better decision as an adult than to be a lost forgotten child. angeltime:angel1: Happy New Year to all!!:harp:

 

[benhur]

But under this paradigm, they would have no need to ever Baptize at all…

except that the NT for sure calls for a believers baptism.

 

[angeltime]

except that the NT for sure calls for a believers baptism.

Pax! So, do you agree then, that a baby is under the care, protection and custody of the parents - who are ultimately the decision-makers but more importantly, the believers??
angeltime:angel1:

 

[rcwitness]

except that the NT for sure calls for a believers baptism.

But the symbol of washing is lost, since the cleansing took place many years ago… and it’s no longer an initiation into the faith, but a mock ritual.

 

[benhur]

Pax! So, do you agree then, that a baby is under the care, protection and custody of the parents - who are ultimately the decision-makers but more importantly, the believers??
angeltime:angel1:

Hi angeltime,

yes,custodians of God’s creation.

Blessings

 

[angeltime]

Hi angeltime,

yes,custodians of God’s creation.

Blessings

angeltime

 

[benhur]

But the symbol of washing is lost, since the cleansing took place many years ago… and it’s no longer an initiation into the faith, but a mock ritual.

Hi rc,

Not sure I follow…do symbols of Passover get lost because the initial passover took place many years ago ? Are you saying that because the spiritual reality already exists (already a believer) it can not be symbolized ? The internal can not be made external ? Even Moses says circumcise the infant but all are to come (later) to be circumcised of the heart, so is the initial circumcision a mock ritual of what will happen in future. Goes both ways.

What happens at an altar, or prayer closet, or on the way to Damascus, or near a chariot, or in a living room with Peter preaching, in the bosom of one’s heart, can not be expressed publicly, or before the church ?..if the reality is not lost, the symbol is not lost , ever. The inner man once born desires and needs to cry out and announce them self, to others, to testify, even in water baptism, as was the immediate case often in Acts. That has to still be considered an initiation into the church.

Again, not sure what you meant but tried to answer in advance.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Not sure I follow…do symbols of Passover get lost because the initial passover took place many years ago?

The Passover is different. The first passover was a sacrifice. It was a type of the eternal sacrifice, but still NOT just a symbol. Baptism is a one time Sacrament. There is no repeating it.

Are you saying that because the spiritual reality already exists (already a believer) it can not be symbolized ?

Baptism is not just an internal experience. It is a reception of a Sacrament. It cannot already exist, if one has not experienced it. Baptism is not synonymous with believing, but believing will seek to accomplish Baptism.

The internal can not be made external ? Even Moses says circumcise the infant but all are to come (later) to be circumcised of the heart, so is the initial circumcision a mock ritual of what will happen in future. Goes both ways.

God does not desire inanimate beings. He places His Spirit within us, for us to live. The Spirit is “over the waters” of Baptism. He begins a work in us through forgiveness and conviction. Man can reject God, but He cannot undo what God has done for man. Man cannot disbelieve God away! He is suddenly upon us.

What happens at an altar, or prayer closet, or on the way to Damascus, or near a chariot, or in a living room with Peter preaching, in the bosom of one’s heart, can not be expressed publicly, or before the church ?..if the reality is not lost, the symbol is not lost , ever. The inner man once born desires and needs to cry out and announce them self, to others, to testify, even in water baptism, as was the immediate case often in Acts. That has to still be considered an initiation into the church.

Let’s keep it relative to our discussion here. We are talking about infants. You implied that maybe (like women in the old Covenant did not need the Rite of circumcision) infants are already in a state of being cleansed. I said, then the event of cleansing is long ago and far removed from water Baptism. You rightly brought the Passover up, because the Lord’s Supper is more appropriate for a nourishing event, which we regularly partake. Baptism is the initiation into that journey. It belongs at the beginning. And it leaves a permanent mark on our person. But Baptism is the freely given sign and Rite of offer of adoption AND personal reception of that offer. It is a real and tangible aspect of the Gospel touching us, in person!

 

[Cathoholic]

There are many prefigurements to being re-birthed by water and the Spirit (Baptism). Not just the circumcision that St. Paul talks about.

I would suggest beginning with St. John’s Gospel and then look back and meditate on these great gifts.

JOHN 1a, 3:1-6, 22 1 In the beginning was the Word . . . 1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. . . . . 22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

(Jesus practiced what He preached. Baptism.)

GENESIS 1:1a, 2b 1 IN the beginning . . . . . and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

We see immediately (“In the beginning”) in creation a water and the Spirit theme. And St. John’s Gospel hearkens us back to Genesis 1 (“In the beginning”).

---

With Noah’s Ark we see a water and Spirit theme too.

GENESIS 8:6-11 6 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made, 7 and sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground; 9 but the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put forth his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him. 10 He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 11 and the dove came back to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth a freshly plucked olive leaf . . . .

1st PETER 3:18b-21a but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you . . .

In Noah’s Ark, we see a water and Spirit theme.

---

With Moses and the Red Sea we will see another water and Spirit theme prefiguring Baptism.

EXODUS 13:18a, 21-22 18 But God led the people round by the way of the wilderness toward the Red Sea. . . . . 21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night; 22 the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not depart from before the people.

**1st CORINTHIANS 10:1-2 **1 I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; . . . .

Another saved by water and the Spirit theme with Moses leading the Israelites through the Red Sea.

(**And Moses DIDN’T say:

“Well you’ll just have to leave your infants on shore here with the coming Egyptians guys.

The infants will have to wait until they are old enough to accept Yahweh into their heart as personal Lord and Savior!”

The babies will have to wait and make a personal choice for themselves.

**

No! This would be non-sense. This would be a tradition of men that makes void the word of God.

The Israelites would have echoed Joshua 24:15 to a man: “As for me and my Household, we will serve the Lord!” They knew we are given God-given authority over their children.)

In the passing through the Red Sea we see a water and Spirit theme. (Not to mention the water from the Rock in the Wilderness. And the Rock was Christ as St. Paul tells us.)

---

---

Continued . . . . ***

 

[Cathoholic]

When Elijah the Prophet opposed the prophets of baal there was a water and the Spirit theme too. You know the Scripture passage . . . .

1st KINGS 18:31-41 31 Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD came, saying, “Israel shall be your name”; 32 and with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD. And he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed. 33 And he put the wood in order, and cut the bull in pieces and laid it on the wood. And he said, “Fill four jars with water, and pour it on the burnt offering, and on the wood.” 34 And he said, “Do it a second time”; and they did it a second time. And he said, “Do it a third time”; and they did it a third time. 35 And the water ran round about the altar, and filled the trench also with water. 36 And at the time of the offering of the oblation, Elijah the prophet came near and said, “O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word. 37 Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that thou, O LORD, art God, and that thou hast turned their hearts back.” 38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt offering, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. 39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, “The LORD, he is God; the LORD, he is God.” 40 And Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape.” And they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and killed them there. 41 And Elijah said to Ahab, “Go up, eat and drink; for there is a sound of the rushing of rain.”

Another water and Spirit theme. Yet another pre-figurement of Baptism when the water is poured three times over the sacrifice.

(It suggests to me at least, “I Baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”)

That’s likely part of the reason WHY when St. John the Baptist was out in the Wilderness Baptizing, the Pharisees KNEW it was significant and asked if he was Elijah.

JOHN 1:23-25 23 He said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” 24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25 They asked him, “Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?”

Another Water and Spirit theme prefiguring Baptism. The Pharisees KNEW (rightly) that when Baptisms of this nature began, to EXPECT the Messiah. And the Pharisees were right on this point.

And speaking of the Pharisees and asking about Baptism, “the Prophet” above in John 1:25 is almost certainly referring to Elisha the Prophet.

Can you think of anything God did using Elisha in a water and Spirit theme?

Yes. Naaman the Syrian General who had leprosy (which is a “type” or “foreshadowing” for sin).

You know the story. Naaman the Syrian had incurable leprosy. Naaman’s Hebrew servant girl suggested he go to the prophet to call upon God to help him.

Naaman DID go to “the prophet” to ask for this.

Elisha through his subordinate told Naaman to go wash seven times in the River Jordan (itself a prefigurement of the Seven Sacraments).

Naaman thought he was dissed (disrespected) by Elisha for not going to him personally and decided against flowing the orders of God (through Elisha via Gehazi).

Fortunately Naaman was persuaded to do the simple thing he was asked to do.

2nd KINGS 5:9-14 9 So Naaman came with his horses and chariots, and halted at the door of Elisha’s house. 10 And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.” 11 But Naaman was angry, and went away, saying, “Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place, and cure the leper. 12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them, and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage. 13 But his servants came near and said to him, "My father, if the prophet had commanded you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?" 14 So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

The Fathers in the early Church saw this as a prefigurement to Baptism as well.

Here is St. Irenaeus back in the late 100’s A.D. just matter-of-factly teaching this.

SAINT IRENAEUS " ‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ "

• Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190), in ANF, I:574

Naaman washing himself with resultant cleansing prefiguring the washing away of sin.
Elisha or “the Prophet”. And yet another water and Spirit theme prefiguring baptism.

Contd.

 

[Cathoholic]

The Prophet Ezekiel sees water flowing from the Temple.

But WHO is the FULFILLMENT of “The Temple”?

Jesus.

And what happened to Jesus after He breathed out His Spirit?

Out of His side flowed blood (suggesting to us, the Eucharist) and water (suggesting to us Baptism).

Below is a portion from Ezekiel 47 with parenthetical addition mine.

EZEKIEL 47:1, 12b Their leaves will not wither nor their fruit fail, . . . because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. . . . . 12 Then he brought me back to the door of the temple; and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east); and the water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple (DRV here translated this as “the waters came down to the right side of the temple” the Jewish JPS edition from 1917 says: “and the waters came down from under, from the right side of the house”, the King James version translates this as “and the waters came down from under from the right side of the house”), south of the altar.

JOHN 19:30-34 30 When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished”; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 31 Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him; 33 but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

Ezekiel and water flowing from the side of the Temple. A water and Spirit theme prefiguring Jesus and His work.

The fulfillment being Jesus giving the world His Spirit and water from His sacred side.

There are many other prefigurements to Christian Baptism as well.

St. John the Baptist’s baptisms were even a prefigurement to Christian Baptism (they were NOT Christian Baptism. That’s WHY in Acts 19, people who had received St. John the Baptist’s baptism still needed to be Baptized into Christ Jesus as they NEVER had Baptism in the Christian sense).

The water and spirit themes that are life giving (there are others too) all culminate in our Lord Jesus and the waters of Baptism He administers to us to give us the graces of His work on Calvary.

And this will result in an Eschatological fulfillment someday too.

REVELATION 22:1 1 Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb . . . .

Praised be God!