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

[gazelam]

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

MJ

Formally no. The LDS Church would reference scripture, such as, Moroni chapter 8 from the Book of Mormon as sufficient evidence of doctrinal correctness. See lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8?lang=eng.

But individual LDS officials and members on their own might cite such scholars as supporting evidence.

 

[rcwitness]

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.

The promise is to all, no matter what. The condition is belief. Infants do not have the ability to accept or reject the Gospel message. Therefore, until they become of the age to do so, they are under the jurisdiction and care of their parents. The belief of the parents is a blessing to their children! And Jesus rejects no one who is brought to Him.

The Baptism and regeneration of adults requires repentance and belief, with the condition of perseverance in faith and love. The Baptism of Infants is forgiveness and acceptance, and with the condition of conversion to the grace which freed them from guilt and received them through Christ’s merits. Both are free, on account of God’s grace, and both require a cooperation and love which was first given to them.

 

[cominghome1966]

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?

I am not 100% certain I understand your question.

But if I do…

Then a partial answer can be found in Acts 15, when the doctrine and practice surrounding circumcision for males was abolished by the bishops at the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[Wannano]

I am not 100% certain I understand your question.

But if I do…

Then a partial answer can be found in Acts 15, when the doctrine and practice surrounding circumcision for males was abolished by the bishops at the Council of Jerusalem.

I see I was not real clear so thanks for asking. A poster was adamantly saying that circumcision=infant baptism. I was bringing up the fact that God in the Old Covenant had given instruction only pertinent to boys. Therefore I was questioning who and how it was decided that females would be included in infant baptism if infant baptism is in fact the same as circumcision since God’s directive for circumcision only involved males.

 

[Cathoholic]

Wannano. You said in post 46 . . .

A poster was adamantly saying that circumcision=infant baptism.

If you are alluding to my posts you are wrong.

I never said: "circumcision = Baptism".

I said circumcision is the PREFIGUREMENT to Baptism. Baptism is in a sense the fulfillment of this prefigurement.

And I showed the veres that St. Paul implies this to us with.

Jesus came not to do away with the law but to fulfill it.

MATTHEW 5:17 17 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

Wannano. Considering “cicumcision” was a big part of “the Torah” or “the law”, and considering what St. Paul said about the relationship concerning “circumcision” and Baptism . . .

. . .What do YOU think the fulfillment of “circumcision” is . . . and WHY would St. Paul bring up circumcision in the context of Baptism and tell Christians that they have received this circumcision?

And when an early Church heretic (about the mid 200’s A. D.) by the name of Fidus tried to say something to the effect of:

. . . Hey look. We need to wait eight days for Baptism because that’s how long we waited in the OLD Testament times

St. Cyprian of Carthage and others told Fidus to get lost.

They told Fidus in the New Covenant, the Graces are MORE, so you don’t even need to wait eight days for this fulfillment of circumcision.
**
You do not need to wait eight days for . . . Baptism.**

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE “As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

WHY do you think Saint Cyprian and ALL the rest of the Council saw it the Catholic way saying NO man born ought to be denied Baptism?

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.

• You have been circumcised by Christ having been buried with him in baptism

NOT COLOSSIANS 2:11-12 (but rather a Phantom Verse) 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 by only accepting Him into your heart as personal Lord and Savior, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

[MartinJordan]

Formally no. The LDS Church would reference scripture, such as, Moroni chapter 8 from the Book of Mormon as sufficient evidence of doctrinal correctness. See lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8?lang=eng.

But individual LDS officials and members on their own might cite such scholars as supporting evidence.

Pls give those links from official and approved LDS authorities.

Meanwhile here are St Augustine commentary on infant Baptism :

Augustine

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]

Source : catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism

MJ

 

[Wannano]

Wannano. You said in post 46 . . .

If you are alluding to my posts you are wrong.

I never said: "circumcision = Baptism".

Well Cathoholic, please refer to your own post 19.

 

[Wannano]

I am not 100% certain I understand your question.

But if I do…

Then a partial answer can be found in Acts 15, when the doctrine and practice surrounding circumcision for males was abolished by the bishops at the Council of Jerusalem.

Your post stimulated me to do some more reading on this text. It sure would be great if Acts 15 contained the explicit teaching in undisputable language that baptism has now replaced circumcision, but there is no mention of it. Seems like it would have been an opportune time to spell it out.

 

[Cathoholic]

Referring to me, Wannano said:

A poster was adamantly saying that circumcision=infant baptism.

I replied (here):

I never said: “circumcision = Baptism”.

Wannano’s retort (here) was:

Well Cathoholic, please refer to your own post 19.

So I went to my own post 19 (here), looked at the relevant quotes and saw no such thing. I rather saw (with emphasis here) . . .

• ("They just DENY that) Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision."
• "Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision."
• "Baptism = circumcision of Christ"

Baptism being the “circumcision of Christ” (as St. Paul explicitly teaches) is a big difference than concluding Baptism being circumcision.

Baptism is NOT equal to circumcision.

Circumcision is an Old Covenant ritual made by human hands.

Baptism is a circumcising NOT made by human hands but by Christ THROUGH His Priests.

St. Paul explicitly said Baptism is the circumcision of Christ.

Wannano. Considering St. Paul says . . . .

COLOSSIANS 2:11-12a (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 . . .

Have YOU put on “the circumcision of Christ”? A “circumcision” NOT made by human hands?

I also earlier showed how Christ is the Baptizer of His Disciples BEHIND the priest Baptizing Christ’s Disciples . . . so it won’t be a relevant argument if you try to say something like . . . .

. . . . “Well Baptism is put on with human hands, so we can rule out Baptism as being the Circumcision of Christ.”

But we know Jesus is the one behind the Priest putting Baptism upon the recipients. I showed this specifically earlier.

---

Abba. You asked in post 1 . . . .

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

Thank you in advance for your response.

I replied in post 19:

They just DENY that Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision.

I think this thread is a pretty typical illustration of this method and principle of Scripture denial that some Bible-ONLY traditions spent years teaching their own students.

These students later grow up and have inaccurate Biblical presuppositions and malformed foundations of sand from these various differing traditions of men that are impossible (without grace) to overcome.

 

[cominghome1966]

Your post stimulated me to do some more reading on this text. It sure would be great if Acts 15 contained the explicit teaching in undisputable language that baptism has now replaced circumcision, but there is no mention of it. Seems like it would have been an opportune time to spell it out.

I have two things to say about this.

1. Have you seen the verses in Col. 2 regarding the “circumcision of Christ” being baptism?
2. As we know, the Bible doesn’t say, “Use this book to answer every question that arises in the post-Apostolic age regarding Christian doctrine and practice.”

So where did you get the idea that the Bible was to be used that way? I am asking seriously. I would genuinely like to know.

 

[Michael68]

I have two things to say about this.

1. Have you seen the verses in Col. 2 regarding the “circumcision of Christ” being baptism?
2. As we know, the Bible doesn’t say, “Use this book to answer every question that arises in the post-Apostolic age regarding Christian doctrine and practice.”

So where did you get the idea that the Bible was to be used that way? I am asking seriously. I would genuinely like to know.

Most protestants erroneously place the Bible as the sole authority. They like to use the Bible to justify some of the outrageous things they say about Catholics.
I have yet to find in the Bible:

1. Sinner’s prayer
2. Altar calls
3. Church only on Sunday and Wednesday
   4.OSAS
4. Faith only

 

[gazelam]

Pls give those links from official and approved LDS authorities.

From the LDS website… (Note that these entries just point back to scripture.)

lds.org/scriptures/gs/infant-baptism?lang=eng
lds.org/scriptures/gs/infant-baptism?lang=eng

From the semi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism… (Note there are some references to early Christianity here.)

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Infant_Baptism

LDS official Tad Callister wrote a book titled "The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration (2006, Deseret Book) in which he addressed infant baptism on pages 221-231. On the copyright page is it noted that the book is the responsibility of the author alone and is not an official publication of the LDS Church. In those pages the author defends the LDS position by citing the Old and New Testament verses, several scholars and theologians, such as, Kurt Aland, Menno Simons (Anabaptist), Martin Luther, John Winebrenner, and Will Durrant. The Didache and Justin Martyr are also referenced.

I hope this helps…

Meanwhile here are St Augustine commentary on infant Baptism :

I appreciate the reference material. Thanks and God bless.

 

[gazelam]

I am not 100% certain I understand your question.

But if I do…

Then a partial answer can be found in Acts 15, when the doctrine and practice surrounding circumcision for males was abolished by the bishops at the Council of Jerusalem.

Not to derail the thread, but there is no reference to bishops in Acts 15. Just Apostles and Elders/Presbyters (depending on your preferred translation) are mentioned.

 

[cominghome1966]

Most protestants erroneously place the Bible as the sole authority. They like to use the Bible to justify some of the outrageous things they say about Catholics.
I have yet to find in the Bible:

1. Sinner’s prayer
2. Altar calls
3. Church only on Sunday and Wednesday
   4.OSAS
4. Faith only

Yes, I understand all that.

But I am seeking an answer from that particular Protestant. And so the question remains.

 

[cominghome1966]

Not to derail the thread, but there is no reference to bishops in Acts 15. Just Apostles and Elders/Presbyters (depending on your preferred translation) are mentioned.

Right.

As you know, Catholics don’t hold to the “Bible alone” doctrine.

Our tradition says they were the first bishops.

 

[Wannano]

I have two things to say about this.

1. Have you seen the verses in Col. 2 regarding the “circumcision of Christ” being baptism?
2. As we know, the Bible doesn’t say, “Use this book to answer every question that arises in the post-Apostolic age regarding Christian doctrine and practice.”

So where did you get the idea that the Bible was to be used that way? I am asking seriously. I would genuinely like to know.

I don’t have a lot of extra time today but will give an attempt. I don’t see verses indicating the circumcision of Christ being Baptism but verse 11 indictates the circumcision not done with human hands I take to be the circumcision of Christ which is a circumcision of the heart which is what happens when we come to the knowledge of our need or a saviour. The verse ends with a colon and v. 12 goes on to describe baptism and how we die with Christ and are raised to new life in Him as a continuation of the circumcision of the heart. As in Peter’s words repent and be baptised.

For your second question I don’t think I said that. I thought I said “wouldn’t it be nice if it explicitly told us” so we wouldn’t have to have these differing interpretations.

 

[cominghome1966]

I don’t have a lot of extra time today but will give an attempt. I don’t see verses indicating the circumcision of Christ being Baptism but verse 11 indictates the circumcision not done with human hands I take to be the circumcision of Christ which is a circumcision of the heart which is what happens when we come to the knowledge of our need or a saviour. The verse ends with a colon and v. 12 goes on to describe baptism and how we die with Christ and are raised to new life in Him as a continuation of the circumcision of the heart. As in Peter’s words repent and be baptised.

Sure, but that’s your interpretation. I don’t mean this crassly, but nobody else is obligated to accept your interpretation. And this is the crux of the difficulty.

Protestant A: “It says X.”

Protestant B: “No, it says Y.”

Protestant C: “No, it says Z.”

Everybody wants to be the infallible interpreter.

For your second question I don’t think I said that. I thought I said “wouldn’t it be nice if it explicitly told us” so we wouldn’t have to have these differing interpretations.

True, you didn’t say that you believed that we are supposed to use the Bible to answer every question regarding Christian doctrine and practice that arises since the time of the Apostles. I assumed you believed it. Was I mistaken?

We don’t have to have differing opinions.

That is the purpose of a living, teaching authority.

 

[PJM]

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…

Fear Not. God is in charge

Conversions are God’s exclusive domain!

God may choose to use us, but even when He does so, the Conversion remains exclusively His. We, my friend are but conduits of the Holy Spirit.

From the latest PEW report 2014

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

CHRISTIANS -7.8%

MAIN LINE PROTESTANTS -4.8%

CATHOLICS -3.1%

There is no doubt that we live in VERY challenging times

The USA in recent history [80’s onward] traditionally has between 50% & 53% of self professed catholic s who voted for the National Democratic Party Platform and candidates

In the most recent election that number was “47%”… a HIGHLY significant change

So there is room for HOPE and a LOT more hard work remains to be done by God and us. .

I see no reason to fear or worry excessively as we can only do ALL that God expects from each of us:thumbsup:

PRAY very much

Learn our Catholic Faith well enough to live it fully & publically

Share it when the HS gives us the opportunity to do so:thumbsup:

And defend it it with clarity [facts] and charity when needed

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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.

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.

Nicely done, thank you

GB

Patrick

 

[ltwin]

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).

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

Except that none of that applies. We know(based on our knowledge of language and our knowledge of other New Testament and Old Testament writings) that Peter was using men in a general way that included women. We know he was not talking about infant males and females because of the way he speaks about baptism, its meaning, and the way that it is intimately connected to repentance. Repentance always accompanies baptism.

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.

Not convincingly, in my humble opinion.

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.

And you know this because . . . . reasons?

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.

You are forgetting that Christianity was radically different from Judaism and most other religions of the time because it was not tied to ethnicity. Judaism did not exclude male infants from the Covenant because it was a covenant based on birth. All Jews were bound by it whether they wanted to be or not.

This is why Paul must distinguish between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision. He also distinguishes between the “outward Jew” and the one who is a Jew “inwardly.” In Romans 2:28-29, he writes:

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Apparently, Paul (a Jew and former Pharisee at that) should have a higher view of the physical sign of circumcision since baptism replaced it. But he doesn’t. He recognizes that as a covenant sign, circumcision does not equate to spiritually belonging to the covenant. I doubt he’d be one of those Jewish fathers protesting the exclusion of his 1 week old from baptism.

Christianity removes the distraction of ethnicity. It says you are not righteous because of your ancestry or nationality or culture. You are righteous because of what is in your heart. Has sin been circumcised from your heart? Have you been cleansed by the blood of Jesus and the washing of water with the word?

The Spirit wants to fill all flesh. The promise of baptism is for all people. But it is not like circumcision, indiscriminately given to children who happen to belong to the right families. The promise of baptism–new life in Christ–is for all who will repent and submit to Christ.