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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abba
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You know, I’m trying to come up with an argument, but I can’t, please let us know, brothers and sisters of the Protestant order…
 
Very interesting point. I never thought of that before.
 
🍿
Abba said:
Thank you in advance for your response.

🍿
Click to expand...
I am a Catholic and I baptized my children as infants, but I am willing to play devil’s advocate just because the question confuses me (not least of all because others apparently find it intriguing). To that end:

  • *]Do non Catholics who argue against infant baptism have a uniform position on infant circumcision?
    *]Do they promote it for religious reasons?
    *]For hygienic reasons?
    *]For cosmetic reasons?
    *]For some other reason?

    Thank you in advance for your response.

    🍿

    tee
 
Now I’ve seen everything, or at least something I never imagined. I’m talking to a devout Protestant who says that a person is NOT required to be baptized in order to be a Christian.
 
I suppose they might argue: Just because the Old Covenant permitted infant circumcision that don’t mean that the New Covenant needs to permit infant baptism. They are, after all, different covenants and, although they might have some of the same or similar features, that doesn’t mean they cannot have different features. A counter-argument to this might be: Since the New Covenant is suppose to be superior to the Old, one would expect the New Covenant to be at least as inclusive as the Old but that would not be the case if infants were not permitted to be baptized.

The usual argument I have seen is: The Bible does not explicitly mention infant baptism.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Some parents–theist or not–do it for what they believe are health reasons, not for religious purposes.

.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I am wondering how Non-Catholics who appreciate the Bible as Sacred Scripture and consider parents have no right to make the decision to baptize their ‘innocent’ children, reconcile OT circumcision with their position against infant baptism.
 
Abba said:
Yes, but I am wondering how Non-Catholics who appreciate the Bible as Sacred Scripture and consider parents have no right to make the decision to baptize their ‘innocent’ children, reconcile OT circumcision with their position against infant baptism.
Click to expand...
You are now asking regarding Old Testament circumcision, the op dealt with infant circumcision.
 
The two are not at all related in 2016. I don’t understand the question at all.
 
Wannano said:
You are now asking regarding Old Testament circumcision, the op dealt with infant circumcision.
Click to expand...
I thought it was implied but, I obviously needed to specify. I am not referring to infant circumcision that may be done for cosmetic or hygienic reasons etc… I have in mind people who uphold the Bible and argue Catholics have no right to baptize their children as the children should make that decision themselves when they become of age. But, I can see how the question can apply to infant circumcision in general. However, I am trying to understand how they reconcile the Bible with their position. I apologize for not being more specific. Let’s carry on.
 
DaddyGirl said:
I would think it’s because in the NT, Jesus and the others are baptized as adults who make a conscious decision to do it.
So if a non-Catholic–and a Catholic, too–appreciates the Christian canon as sacred scripture…it may make sense to them to follow suit.

.
Click to expand...
Umm, yes, but Jesus was circumcised as a child.
 
We put on Baptism through faith in the workings of God.

We have faith in Jesus when He tells us when we are re-birthed of water AND the Spirit. We really have faith in this working of God (this and all “workings of God” too).
JOHN 3:1-6, 22 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.
Click to expand...
Baptism IS among “the workings of Jesus (God)”.

That’s WHY Jesus Baptizes us as His disciples (though in another sense Jesus isn’t the one doing Baptisms), we trust His Baptism as being efficacious. We have faith in the workings of God.
  • The Lord was Baptizing disciples in one sense
  • The Lord Jesus is NOT Baptizing disciples in another sense
If this seems confusing (that in one sense Jesus Baptizes but in another sense, the person doing the Baptism Baptizes) see this picture on Google with the concept of Confession. It is the same principle. Jesus is the “Priest behind the priest”.
JOHN 4:1-2 1 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples) . . .
Click to expand...
Abba. You asked . . .
How do Non-Catholics who argue against infant baptism reconcile their position with infant circumcision?
Click to expand...
They just DENY that Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision.

They will just resort to saying, “you are interpreting that”, which to many of them means, you are tossing that theology INTO the passage.

But we are not.

We are told to put on the “circumcision of Christ” (actually here St. Paul is talking to people who have already put on “the circumcision of Christ”).

Baptism is HOW we become a new creation, by putting on the circumcision of Christ . . . by putting on Baptism.

Baptism is HOW we are buried and raised with Jesus.

Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision.
COLOSSIANS 2:11-12 (RSV) 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and** you were buried with him in baptism**, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Click to expand...
COLOSSIANS 2:11-12 (NIV) 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12** having been buried with him in baptism**, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Click to expand...
**
  • Baptism = circumcision of Christ = How we were buried and raised with Jesus
**

Baptism is HOW we are put IN Christ Jesus.

Baptism puts us into the New Covenant. Jesus IS the New Covenant in a sense.

In the Old Covenant, infants (at least male infants), were welcomed into the Old Covenant.

There were great graces in the Old Covenant (but not the infinitely great graces we now get in the New Covenant).
As we move from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, do we . . . . move from great graces (in the Old Covenant) to . . . LESS graces in Christ or LESS graces in the New Covenant (where infants are now NOT welcome anymore in a Covenant sense)?

OR . . .

Or as we move from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, do we go from great graces in the Old Covenant, to even GREATER graces in the New Covenant (where now ALL babies are welcomed into the Covenant)?
In the Old Covenant, the people were EXPECTED to Covenant their babies to God.
GENESIS 17:11-14 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. 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."
Click to expand...
In the New Covenant, we are called to put on the “circumcision of Christ” (Baptism).

Do you think St. Paul would use language of “circumcision” if babies were excluded from such Covenant union?

God bless.

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

Well of course I’m a Baha’i**…**not a Catholic.

We don’t practise baptism as a rite… but we believe infants are already born without sin…

**Be not grieved at the death of that infant child, for it is placed in trust for thee before thy Lord in His great Kingdom.
**
(Abdu’l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha v1, p. 194)Question: “What becomes of an undeveloped infant’s soul?”
Answer by 'Abdu’l-Bahá: "It rests with the mercy of God and through the eternal bounty it will not be deprived of that mercy."
Code: 
(SOW - Star of the West, Star of the West -  5)
Circumcision is not an issue for Baha’is… It’s up to the parents…
 
Abba said:
Yes, but I am wondering how Non-Catholics who appreciate the Bible as Sacred Scripture and consider parents have no right to make the decision to baptize their ‘innocent’ children, reconcile OT circumcision with their position against infant baptism.
Click to expand...
Credobaptism, in contrast to the paedobaptist view, is the belief that only those who give a believable profession of faith should be baptized. Over and over again, it is emphasized in Scripture that baptism is for those who hear and receive the gospel and trust in Christ (Acts 2:41, 8:12, 10:44-48). In Galatians 3:27, we are told that to baptized is to “put on Christ.” In Colossians 2:12, we are told that in baptism we are buried with Christ and raised with him “through faith in the working of God.” I don’t think anyone is arguing that any infant just a couple of weeks old has the ability to comprehend the gospel let alone put their faith and trust in Christ. Therefore, its quite clear to credobaptist Protestants that children too young to make a profession of faith should not be baptized.

As I understand it, Catholics believe that the Church itself provides the faith that the infants themselves do not yet possess in order to meet the precondition of having faith. In addition, since the sacrament contains the grace it signifies, as long as the subjects do not hinder it (which I suppose infants would not), mediating faith is not necessary for baptism to have an effect.

Protestants can’t explain the situation away as neatly, since it is a bedrock of Protestant theology that the sacraments do not work ex opere operato. Rather, Protestants in the believer’s baptism tradition would say that baptism is a means of grace when it is rightly “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” (1 Peter 3:21). The Church or one’s parents cannot make such an appeal on behalf of another person in baptism. We can certainly pray for and intercede on behalf of our children, but we cannot make such crucial spiritual decisions for them.

Since paedobaptist Protestants cannot rely on sacramental regeneration as taught by the Catholic Church, they defend infant baptism on the grounds of covenant theology-all infant children of believing parents should rightly be baptized since they are born as part of the “covenant community” (whatever that means). In this view, baptism does not mean that one is regenerated. Rather, baptism becomes a sign of entrance into the community of God’s people-just as circumcision was a sign of entrance into the community of God’s people in the Old Testament.

Supporters point to Colossians 2:11-12 where Paul makes a direct parallel between circumcision and baptism. They also point to the “household baptisms” that are recorded in Acts 16 and 1 Corinthians 1:16.

When it comes to circumcision, yes there are parallels, but baptism is a different animal altogether. Physical circumcision was not a sign of someone who had true spiritual life. It was simply required of all males living in Israel, this is because one becomes a Jew by being born two Jewish parents. Paul speaks to the problem of according to much emphasis on a physical sign when he writes: “Real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal” (Romans 2:29). Therefore, you can be physically circumcised but spiritually uncircumcised and vice versa.

Entrance into the new covenant is not based on physical birth but on the new birth in Christ. Therefore, it is wrong to treat baptism as if its a “right” that children of Christian parents are entitled to simply for being born. Paul writes in Romans 9:6, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”. He follows this with verse 8: “This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”
 
Conflict is not always seen.

Many of our Protestant amigos hold that baptism requires a conscious intention, as in the case of those who went to John the Baptist, or converts in the time of Acts.

Biblically, circumcision was from the beginning performed on infants, so there is no conflict.

ICXC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top