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

[petra22]

USMC_Convert;14363846:

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.

This scares me more than anything lately for some reason. Why are the churches not pulling people in off the street and trying to baptize them? Doesn’t Jesus say (to us all) unless you are born of water and the spirit…) My neighbors around here who don’t go to church anywhere… I still encourage them to find a church and get baptized… only no one listens to me…

 

[heidi_storage]

Remember that there are fundamentally different positions on what baptism IS. For credobaptists, it is a public testimony to one’s faith in Christ; ergo, it would be ridiculous to baptize infants.

 

[Wannano]

This scares me more than anything lately for some reason. Why are the churches not pulling people in off the street and trying to baptize them? Doesn’t Jesus say (to us all) unless you are born of water and the spirit…) My neighbors around here who don’t go to church anywhere… I still encourage them to find a church and get baptized… only no one listens to me…

Our job as Christians is to first teach the gospel to the nations. If we take the time to teach people the truths of Christ the Holy Spirit will convict them of their need to repent. As Peter said “repent and be baptized.” Just dragging people off the street and into a church to get baptized is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[PJM]

Thank you in advance for your response.

THAT is a GREAT question

I’m looking forward to the responses

GBY and Merry Christmas

Patrick

 

[Wannano]

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).

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”.

---

Abba. You asked . . .

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.

**

• Baptism = circumcision of Christ = How we were buried and raised with Jesus

**

---

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)?

---

You raise an interesting question. If the circumcision of males in the Old Covenant is replaced in the New Covenant by infant baptism who has decided we should go against God’s directive to circumcise the man child by infant baptizing female babies?

 

[ComplineSanFran]

This scares me more than anything lately for some reason. Why are the churches not pulling people in off the street and trying to baptize them? Doesn’t Jesus say (to us all) unless you are born of water and the spirit…)…

I believe that this is exactly what the Mormons do.

 

[Cathoholic]

Wannano. You said (emphasis mine) . . . .

If the circumcision of males in the Old Covenant is replaced in the New Covenant by infant baptism who has decided we should go against God’s directive to circumcise the man child by infant baptizing female babies?

First of all, Merry Christmas.

Your question has a built-in false premise and I am not going to hold to it.

It ASSUMES we are going AGAINST “God’s directive.”

Infant Baptism IS God’s directive.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano. You said (emphasis mine) . . . .

First of all, Merry Christmas.

Your question has a built-in false premise and I am not going to hold to it.

It ASSUMES we are going AGAINST “God’s directive.”

Infant Baptism IS God’s directive.

Your are misinterpreting what I mean, I am pointing out God’s directive in OT circumcision involved only the males. Baptism involves both male and female.

 

[Cathoholic]

To readers of this thread, on this page is the photo of Jesus the Priest behind the priest.

The Google link I gave earlier showed other pictures, some unrelated.

---

Itwin. In post 21 you are appealing to verses that suggest–not deny–infant baptism.

You appealed to Acts 2:41 for example.

Let’s go ahead and look at the verse.

ACTS 2:41 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

All this shows is adults who are catechized, then receive Baptism.
**
The Catholic Church still teaches this paradigm today 2000 years later.**

Adults who present for entrance into the Body of Christ, believe, repent of their sins, receive at least some instruction, then are Baptized.

This is what we did 2,000 years ago, and this is still what we as Catholics do (for adults) today.

But WHY do you think we should EXCLUDE infants from Baptism from this?

All that this passage means, is that St. Peter was talking to adults.

 

[Cathoholic]

ACTS 2:41 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

All that this passage means, is that St. Peter was talking to adults.

The reasoning you are using here seems to say . . .

“since St. Peter is talking to “adults” here, infants should not be Baptized.”

As a matter of fact, if you attempt to use it out of context (the way you are attempting), since St. Peter is addressing “MEN”, one may end up saying . . . .

“since St. Peter is talking to “men” here, women should not be Baptized.”

(Remember that St. Peter here is addressing “men” (“men of Judea and Pamphilia, and . . .”)

ACTS 2:14 14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem . . .

You might argue that"all who dwell in Jerusalem" would include “women”.

But I would just say it would include babies too.

You might point out, “Yes but babies can’t repent.”

To which I would say, “babies have no committed sins and have nothing to repent of.”

They have no sins like Adam’s sins (committed sins).

They DO have Original Sin, but no committed sins. Nothing to “repent” of.

 

[ltwin]

Itwin. In post 21 you are appealing to verses that suggest–not deny–infant baptism.

No, they don’t suggest infant baptism. Infant baptism is never mentioned in Scripture. In Scripture, we only have believers being baptized. (Yes, I know people argue that “households” were baptized but the context implies those who heard and received the gospel in those households, not the babies.)

You appealed to Acts 2:41 for example.

Let’s go ahead and look at the verse.

All this shows is adults who are catechized, then receive Baptism.

Yep.

The Catholic Church still teaches this paradigm today 2000 years later.

Adults who present for entrance into the Body of Christ, believe, repent of their sins, receive at least some instruction, then are Baptized.

This is what we did 2,000 years ago, and this is still what we as Catholics do (for adults) today.

I’m aware.

But WHY do you think we should EXCLUDE infants from Baptism from this?

All that this passage means, is that St. Peter was talking to adults.

We’re not excluding people. It is not appropriate to baptize infants because infants are manifestly incapable of consenting to baptism. There is nothing unfair or unjust in this. Baptism is not a right of church membership that we can pass on to our children. Baptism is a sacrament of new birth, and only those who have been born again (not born the first time) should be admitted.

This is the nature of baptism. “Repent and be baptized.” Turn from your sins, die to the old self, and rise born again, risen anew by faith in Christ. That is what baptism is about–the choice to forsake all that you were to become all that you have been called to be in Christ. To die with him and to live with him. To suffer with him and to be victorious with him. To appeal to God for a clean conscience and to shed the old man so that you can put on Christ.

This is something you, by the grace of God, have to choose–not your parents, not your church. To put yourself to death so that you can be a new creation in Christ is a decision that belongs only to you.

 

[ltwin]

All that this passage means, is that St. Peter was talking to adults.

The reasoning you are using here seems to say . . .

As a matter of fact, if you attempt to use it out of context (the way you are attempting), since St. Peter is addressing “MEN”, one may end up saying . . . .

(Remember that St. Peter here is addressing “men” (“men of Judea and Pamphilia, and . . .”)

You might argue that"all who dwell in Jerusalem" would include “women”.

This is not a serious argument. The biblical writers, as most writers did until the last couple of centuries, used the universal masculine pronoun when discussing people or groups of people in general.

But I would just say it would include babies too.

You might point out, “Yes but babies can’t repent.”

To which I would say, “babies have no committed sins and have nothing to repent of.”

They have no sins like Adam’s sins (committed sins).

They DO have Original Sin, but no committed sins. Nothing to “repent” of.

Yes, children have original sin. From the evangelical Protestant perspective, however, there is nothing inherent within baptism that removes original sin. The infant does not have faith, and so infant baptism would not solve the problem of removing original sin.

Once again, evangelical Protestants see no reason to baptize infants unless they happen to subscribe to the Reformed/Presbyterian/evangelical Anglican view that baptism has replaced circumcision as a general, physical sign that mark the children of believing parents as members of the covenant community (they are not necessarily regenerated but these churches assume that they are among the elect and hope that through the teaching of the church they will be brought to saving faith later in life).

 

[Cathoholic]

Itwin. You said regarding the verses in Acts 2 . . . .

No, they don’t suggest infant baptism.

Sure they do (the verses in the passage).

Baptism and subsequent reception of the Holy Spirit, is part of “the promise”.

And “the promise” is for you (men of Judea) AND your whole families!

ACTS 2:17, 37-41 17 'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; . . . 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” 40 And

and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." 40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

This non-existent phantom verse is what your theology seems to be positing Itwin . . . .

NOT ACTS 2:17, 38-39 (phantom verse) 17 'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all adults, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; . . . But they cannot receive my gifts unless they are of the age of reason. . . . 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children but not now for your children. Not until your children arrive at the age of reason.

The verses suggest children are part of “the promise”.
The verses suggest children are part of “Baptism”.

 

[ltwin]

Baptism and subsequent reception of the Holy Spirit, is part of “the promise”.

And “the promise” is for you (men of Judea) AND your whole families!

The verses suggest children are part of “the promise”.
The verses suggest children are part of “Baptism”.

Baptism is not the promise. It’s part of a condition to the promise, part of repentance. This is clearly seen in verses 37-38:

… “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “[1. the condition] Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and [2. the promise] you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit…” The Holy Spirit is the promise. Baptism is a step in the process of repentance, of becoming a disciple of Christ.

The promise is available to our children. To see the promise fulfilled in their own lives, they need only turn from sin and toward Christ in repentance. Baptism is part of that, but this is not an act of parents applied on behalf of their children. It is not a “right” that children of believing families have. It is the children themselves, when they are old enough to make such a decision, choosing to walk in the promise as their parents did.

 

[Cathoholic]

Itwin. You said (emphasis mine) . . .

they need only turn from sin and toward Christ in repentance.

First of all the passage does NOT say this.

The passage specifically says “repent AND be Baptized”.

---

Itwin:

they need only turn from sin and toward Christ in repentance.

The Holy Spirit (through St. Peter via St. Luke who wrote Acts) . . . .

ACTS 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

---

(And this is not even all of the conditions. But the passage is not a treatise on the features of a valid Baptism, but a summary of part of what took place that day between St. Peter and these MEN.)

Your tradition ADDS in the “ONLY” to this (it must do this for a variety of reasons I won’t get into yet here).

The problem with your relatively new tradition using repentance as a universal precondition for Baptism is our infants have NO SIN to repent of.

Yet our infants DO have Original Sin (which is a deprivation of original justice and resulted in corruption of the very nature of our first parents Adam and Eve and thus a corruption of . . . us. . . . from the very time of our conception.)

Despite infants having a fallen nature (subjecting them to concupiscience, sickness, and death, etc.), these same infants have not yet COMMITTED any sins Itwin.

Infants do not have the sins like the transgression of Adam.
Infants do not have COMMITTED sin Itwin.

Therefore, infants have nothing to “repent” of.

You also said (again emphasis mine) . . .

… “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, "[1. **the condition

] Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins

That IS “the condition” Itwin. You are correct here.

But it is the “condition” for the people who St. Peter is talking to. And St. Peter is talking to . . . . MEN.

But without more evidence, you cannot universalize this condition without venturing into “traditions of men that make void the word of God” Itwin. Especially since we know infants have no transgressions to repent of.

Life in the Holy Spirit is “the promise” Itwin.

 

[ltwin]

First of all the passage does NOT say this.

The passage specifically says “repent AND be Baptized”.

Baptism is part of repentance. In baptism, we bury the old man and rise a new creation in Christ. There is a finality, a strengthening, and a sealing to our commitment to live in Christ.

(And this is not even all of the conditions. But the passage is not a treatise on the features of a valid Baptism, but a summary of part of what took place that day between St. Peter and these MEN.)

Your tradition ADDS in the “ONLY” to this (it must do this for a variety of reasons I won’t get into yet here).

I didn’t add anything. The only thing that is mentioned is repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins. If they’re was something else, Peter would have mentioned it.

The problem with your relatively new tradition using repentance as a universal precondition for Baptism is our infants have NO SIN to repent of.

That’s a problem for you. It’s not a problem for Scripture. If there is no sin to repent of then baptism serves no purpose anyway.

Yet our infants DO have Original Sin (which is a deprivation of original justice and resulted in corruption of the very nature of our first parents Adam and Eve and thus a corruption of . . . us. . . . from the very time of our conception.)

Yes, infants do have original sin, but the problem of original sin is not solved by baptism.

Despite infants having a fallen nature (subjecting them to concupiscience, sickness, and death, etc.), these same infants have not yet COMMITTED any sins Itwin.

Yes. They cannot profess faith in Christ, and they have no sins to repent of. That is why we do not baptize them.

Infants do not have the sins like the transgression of Adam.
Infants do not have COMMITTED sin Itwin.

Therefore, infants have nothing to “repent” of.

Yes, we’re on the same page.

That IS “the condition” Itwin. You are correct here.

But it is the “condition” for the people who St. Peter is talking to. And St. Peter is talking to . . . . MEN.

But without more evidence, you cannot universalize this condition without venturing into “traditions of men that make void the word of God” Itwin.

I am not relying on traditions of men. The Bible was written in human language, and we can use knowledge of human language to understand the Bible. If there is uncertainly about interpretation, then we use Scripture to interpret Scripture.

It is clear that Peter is including women because the prophecy of Joel includes women.

Acts 2:17-18
“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
even on my male servants and female servants"

There are other places in Scripture which also point out that God is not a respecter of sex.Galatians 3:28. I don’t have to rely on traditions of men. On this issue, the Bible is perfectly clear.

If using reason to understand the Bible is making the word of God void to you, then there really is nothing else to discuss with you if your’re seriously going to say that a reasonable reading of “men” in Acts seriously contends that women cannot be baptized.

Especially since we know infants have no transgressions to repent of.

Yes, which is why we don’t baptize them. There is nothing in Scripture that indicates “men” should apply to male and female infants.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Not at all. Pull up a chair. The popcorn is on me.

I don’t mean to derail the thread or anything but my mother got me a popcorn popper for Christmas Oh, she knows me too well. I am just thinking that since it says in Colossians what baptism is it specifically refers to circumcision so I don’t really understand why people would have a problem with baptizing infants especially if they are though sola scriptura folks

 

[gazelam]

There is little, if any, historical evidence that infant baptisms were performed in the earliest days of the Church.

German scholar Kurt Aland wrote…
It can be no accident… that all of our information about the existence of infant baptism comes from the period between A.D. 200 and 250….For the time before this we do not possess a single piece of information that gives concrete testimony to the existence of infant baptism… To this day [1963] nobody can prove an actual case of the baptism of an infant in the period before A.D. 200…. That our entire sources, at least when allowed their literal sense, have in view only the baptism of adults, or at best the baptism of older children, can as little be contested. (Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, pp. 101, 102)

Also, Everett Ferguson wrote…
There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. This fact does not mean that it did not occur, but it means that supporters of the practice have a considerable chronological gap to account for. Many replace the historical silence by appeal to theological or sociological considerations.
Arguments against the originality of baby baptism, in addition to its lack of early attestation, include: the essential nature ascribed to verbal confession and repentance; the liturgy designed for persons of responsible age; size of baptisteries; and the lack of an agreed theology to support it (Chrysostom and the Eastern churches vs. Augustine).
The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of the practice of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries.
In the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy infant baptism was a principal support for the doctrine of original sin, rather than the other way around, since baptism was universally recognized as for forgiveness of sins. With the victory of Augustine’s arguments original sin became the reason for infant baptism in the western church. (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, pp. 856, 857)

 

[MartinJordan]

There is little, if any, historical evidence that infant baptisms were performed in the earliest days of the Church.

German scholar Kurt Aland wrote…
It can be no accident… that all of our information about the existence of infant baptism comes from the period between A.D. 200 and 250….For the time before this we do not possess a single piece of information that gives concrete testimony to the existence of infant baptism… To this day [1963] nobody can prove an actual case of the baptism of an infant in the period before A.D. 200…. That our entire sources, at least when allowed their literal sense, have in view only the baptism of adults, or at best the baptism of older children, can as little be contested. (Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, pp. 101, 102)

Also, Everett Ferguson wrote…
There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. This fact does not mean that it did not occur, but it means that supporters of the practice have a considerable chronological gap to account for. Many replace the historical silence by appeal to theological or sociological considerations.
Arguments against the originality of baby baptism, in addition to its lack of early attestation, include: the essential nature ascribed to verbal confession and repentance; the liturgy designed for persons of responsible age; size of baptisteries; and the lack of an agreed theology to support it (Chrysostom and the Eastern churches vs. Augustine).
The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of the practice of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries.
In the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy infant baptism was a principal support for the doctrine of original sin, rather than the other way around, since baptism was universally recognized as for forgiveness of sins. With the victory of Augustine’s arguments original sin became the reason for infant baptism in the western church. (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, pp. 856, 857)

.
Do the LDS Church use the above authors as proofs in iits Constitution?

MJ

 

[Cathoholic]

If using reason to understand the Bible is making the word of God void to you, then there really is nothing else to discuss with you if your’re seriously going to say that a reasonable reading of “men” in Acts seriously contends that women cannot be baptized.

Hold on there Itwin.

I’m not accusing YOU of saying women can’t be Baptized.

I am saying applying the same reasoning you have applied to Acts 2, someone COULD come to that conclusion. Not YOU Itwin.

Applying the reasoning you are employing here you could come to all sorts of wrong conclusions in Scripture.

People that refuse to work, don’t need to be fed by you either (2nd Thessalonians 3:10). But you can’t apply that reasoning to babies Itwin.

I know YOU are not saying it should. I am saying using your principles one COULD draw that conclusion using these faulty principles (as Pat Madrid has brought out in one of his great books).

2nd Thessalonians 3:10 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat.

If someone tried to apply this verse against infants YOU (and I) would say: “Hey wait a minute. These verses are directed to adults, not infants. And even with adults there are exceptions.”

You would tell this objector not to universalize the verse against infants unless there is evidence to do so. And of course there is no evidence to conclude against feeding infants based upon 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 (or anywhere else).

I want to have the discussion.

No animosity from me here (at least that I am aware of).

But I am applying principles here.1

And you are falling into the false application of because MEN (adults) need to “repent and be Baptized” your tradition wrongly concludes this would have to apply to infants too.

And I have showed WHY this reasoning is wrong.

And it is wrong.

Infants in the Old Covenant, were always Covenanted to God (at least the males. I showed you specifics earlier).

And if NOW, the New Covenant EXCLUDES infants, Jewish fathers would be protesting on the day of Pentecost.

“Our little boys were better off in the Old Covenant Peter! At least THEN, they were welcomed into the Covenant. Now in this so called “New Covenant” my little boys are NOT WELCOME anymore. No thanks Peter. We are staying in the OLD Covenant. Where Yaweh WELCOMED our boys!”

But you hear NOTHING like this.

Why?

Because in the New Covenant, boys were NOT EXCLUDED, and now girls are INCLUDED TOO.

“The promise” is for you AND your children!

They ALL can put on . . . “the circumcision of Christ” Itwin. Not just adults.

“The promise is for you AND for your children!”