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

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Thank you in advance for your response.

Did the Baptist John baptize any infants? If so where is your evidence?

However, God swore a covenant with Abraham to circumcise children 8 days old.

How do you reconcile infants not getting circumcised with infants having baptism? If an infant doesn’t have to be circumcised then how come the same infant must be baptized? You deny circumcision, others deny baptism (of infants). Are you the authority on circumcision and baptism?

I can get my child circumcised according to scripture, however, there is nothing within scripture that says I have to baptize my child at a certain time. I would rather my child to understand something of the Word before being baptized.

Or are you one of those people that believe children go to hell because they haven’t been baptized? In your heart, children burn in hell? What does Jesus tell you, you must become like one of these little ones in order to enter into heaven. You’re like the Pharisees guarding a manger full of grain. You won’t let anyone enter and neither yourself will enter.

 

[Cathoholic]

Itwin. You said . . . .

We know he was not talking about infant males and females because of the way he speaks about baptism . . . .

No Itwin. We know he WAS talking about infants because of the way he speaks about Baptism.

Repent and be Baptized. . . . And the promise is for you AND for your CHILDREN. --St. Peter

You also said . . .

baptism . . .is intimately connected to repentance.

I’ve already affirmed the connection of repentance and Baptism Itwin . . . . For those people who have sin to “repent” of.

(What sins do you think infants have committed that they need to repent of Itwin?)

 

[Cathoholic]

Sacred_Heart. You said in post 63 . . . .

Did the Baptist John baptize any infants? If so where is your evidence?

It seems to me you may not be aware, that St. John the Baptist’s baptisms, were NOT Christian Baptism. There is more information on this subject here.

You asked . . . .

How do you reconcile infants not getting circumcised with infants having baptism?

Because they are not the same thing. Baptism is the FULFILLMENT of circumcision.

 

[benhur]

Thank you in advance for your response.

Hi Abba,

is that like asking those who believe infant baptism is effectual entry sign into new covenant still also do old sign (circumcision) of old covenant ?

 

[ltwin]

No Itwin. We know he WAS talking about infants because of the way he speaks about Baptism.

Repent and be Baptized. . . . And the promise is for you AND for your CHILDREN. --St. Peter

No, we can assume he was talking about infant baptism, but we don’t know that–not from simply reading this verse.

As to Peter’s quote, yes the promise was to their children. As the Prophet Joel wrote long before the Day of Pentecost, “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” The children mentioned are old enough to prophesy when they are filled with the Spirit. There is no reason to infer that the availability of the promise to the posterity of the believers implies that such descendants must be baptized at infancy to receive the promise.

It is a promise to parents that the blessings of salvation are not confined just to that moment, on that particular Pentecost day. It is a promise that this extraordinary outpouring of God’s Spirit is not a one time event but the new reality–being repeated in every generation until the Lord comes.Under this promise parents are encouraged to train up their children to live for God and given hope for their children’s salvation.

But it is not a command to baptize infants.

(What sins do you think infants have committed that they need to repent of Itwin?)

They have committed no actual sin. Therefore, we do not baptize them.

 

[benhur]

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.

you missed Daddy girls point. Does anyone but Jewish folk circumcise for religious reasons ? Never heard of P’s doing it after tradition of Abraham.

 

[benhur]

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.

.

Except that Paul (and a council) said it is "necessary"to be done by gentiles.

 

[benhur]

Umm, yes, but Jesus was circumcised as a child.

Jesus was/is Jewish , hence His circumcision.

 

[benhur]

They just DENY that Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision.

Hi C,

Not sure that P’s would say that . Circumcision and baptism are a sign of covenant. Not sure we say circumcision was effectual unto regeneration in the OT. Most of those against Jesus ( did not believe) during His Earthly ministry were circumcised but not regenerated, born again, born of the spirit. They were not circumcised in their hearts.

In the Old Covenant, the people were EXPECTED to Covenant their babies to God.

Yes and what does that mean? Does that mean they are “born of the spirit, born again” ? If so why did Jesus tell a leading rabbi, a circumcised rabbi , he was not (and insinuated many circumcised were not, as Paul also states)?

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?

Does Paul say that you put it on by water baptism?

“When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but *not by a physical procedure. *Christ performed a spiritual circumcision–the cutting away of your sinful nature.” Col. 2:11

Water baptism is a physical procedure spoken of next in the verse as symbol of Christ death and res. One believes unto salvation. One believes(already circumcised in heart) and is then baptized. No one is baptized first before believing in Christ. And can one genuinely belief in Christ without regeneration first ? Can the flesh believe unto righteousness? If so why circumcise the flesh, or kill it and bury it ?

OT infant circumcision, and infant baptism in NT, is ok , but Jesus still tells any NT or OT hearer of age…“You (still) must be born again”.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Except that Paul (and a council) said it is "necessary"to be done by gentiles.

I meant not necessary.

 

[benhur]

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.”

Amen!

 

[benhur]

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…

Hi Petra

Good point , if indeed baptism is effectual we would be pushing loved folk into the waters…but the miracle of faith must first happen , then we baptize to seal the deal, of what has already happened, a circumcision without hands.

Blessings

PS- being born of water in your verse, is not water baptism, for such a theological view was not held at the time of this saying (at most it was a cleansing, a preparation much like John’s baptism, but was not Spirit inducing…much like your confession, fasting, praying before communion is not the actual “reception” but in anticipation of).

Water does not spiritually birth but only gives fleshly birth (born of water as in amniotic fluid, or “breaking water” etc), hence the next verse, ''What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the spirit spirit." Two births: flesh/spiritual, two terms:water/spirit. This may seem crass to speak of “breaking water” but after all, Jesus goes with the “flow” of Nicodemus’s remark of reentering his mother to be born again, to break water again. Really ! One can’t make this stuff up.

 

[benhur]

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

Hi E,

but what was/is Jewish circumcision ? Does it regenerate ? It puts you in a community of faith , but hanging out in a garage does not guarantee you will become a car. Hence, “You must be born again” even if circumcised, or infant water baptized.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

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.

Hi W,

agree, for Paul says claims your first sentence(preach/teach) and says at one point,“I am glad i did not baptize(water) any of you” …they were bickering which hands baptized them (peter or paul etc )

And:"When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure"Col2:11

it was like look mom, no hands! By no work of righteousness are we saved, yet it is righteous to be baptized.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

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.

Hi C ,not sure what happened at Penetecost was just catechesis. it was preaching to lost souls.Lost souls do not ususlay volunteer for "instruction. But for sure they were a captive audience, heard Peters Spirit inspired words, and the folks were Spirit pierced, convicted , came to believe and gladly were baptized. They were converted before baptism
They were born of the spirit before hitting the water. Can one believe unto salvation without being born again. I have not heard of anyone not believing, saying they were not born again before entering the water, and coming out saying they now believed in Jesus and were born again.

Blessings

 

[Cathoholic]

I asked . . . .

(What sins do you think infants have committed that they need to repent of Itwin?)

Your reply was . . . .

They have committed no actual sin…

That’s correct.

But we are not Baptized ONLY for the forgiveness of committed sins Itwin (that is part of the reason, but there are MORE reasons too).

What OTHER reasons do you think Catholics Baptize people for?

I want to know what you think we assert so I can tailor my answer to your concerns.

---

Itwin. You also said. . . .

As to Peter’s quote, yes the promise was to their children.

Thank you for affirming this at least. You and I are in agreement that “the promise” is for those men of Judea, others, AND their children.

But remember. This is in the context of pouring our His Spirit upon “all flesh”.

Do you think infants are included among “all flesh” Itwin?

ACTS 2:16-17, 37-41 16 but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 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 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.

---

And your point Itwin, about “The children mentioned are old enough to prophesy when they are filled with the Spirit” is irrelevant. (emphasis mine) . . . .

As to Peter’s quote, yes the promise was to their children. As the Prophet Joel wrote long before the Day of Pentecost, “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” The children mentioned are old enough to prophesy when they are filled with the Spirit.

You cannot infer because infants are not “old enough (in your opinion) to prophesy when they are filled with the Spirit” that . . . . infants must be EXCLUDED from reception of the Holy Spirit.

That is a non-sequitur Itwin. It doesn’t follow. It is fallacious and invalid reasoning. It doesn’t work.

All St. Peter said was, “your sons and your daughters will prophecy”.

**He did NOT say they have to ALL be “old enough” to prophecy to receive the Holy Spirit. **

He said quite the opposite. He said God will “POUR” (an implication of Baptism) out His Spirit upon ALL FLESH.

It seems to me you wish the passage said He will pour our His Spirit upon “ALL ADULTS”.

But it doesn’t say that Itwin.

Besides. What makes you think at least in some cases, infants cannot prophecy?

Don’t you think God can give prophecy through an infant?

You DO affirm God can give prophecy through a donkey don’t you? (See Numbers 22:28)

It is said St. Rose of Lima used to have a rose appear over her head as an infant (Isabel Flores de Olivia later nicknamed “Rose” because of this) and a rose would even appear on her countenance as an infant. (St. Rose of Lima officially took this name upon her Confirmation).

If that was true (it was), and if it was of God (and it was), then this IS a way God communicated through this infant Itwin.

I think if I showed you an example of an infant giving prophecy, I suspect you’d just deny it and then subsequently STILL deny infant Baptism Itwin.

But I want to know

**1 Where you get the notion that God cannot give prophecy through infants since the time of Christ . . . and . . . .

2 Even if that were true, WHY would that EXCLUDE infants from “all flesh”. **

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur. You are saying or inferring several things here in your posts about my writings that I didn’t say.

You said for example:

Hi C ,not sure what happened at Penetecost was just catechesis

Where did you get the notion that I think the Pentecost event in Acts was “JUST” catechesis?

 

[benhur]

benhur. You are saying or inferring several things here in your posts about my writings that I didn’t say.

You said for example:

Where did you get the notion that I think the Pentecost event in Acts was “JUST” catechesis?

Hi C,

You posted:"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.

Sorry for my poor wording . Perhaps what I meant to say was not Pentecost itself (gifting of HS) but we were both referring to Peter’s first sermon at Pentecost vs 14 thru 39 . I understand your point then ,that in general folks are first catechized , believe ,then baptized.

I am saying catechesis is or can be two different things…one is teaching converts, another is exhorting to conversion. Yet most people do not think of “preaching " to lost souls, like an annointed holy roller on a street corner, as “catechesis”, that one is “preach” (to lost, unconverted folk), and one is” teach" (to saved,converted souls). The latter is what many think catechesis is, but technically I guess the term can apply to both teach and preach.

So I gather we both believe only believers , converted folk, are water baptized, and that gladly. We just differ as to the why “gladly” perhaps. I would say gladly because they have already been born in the Spirit and see, have, their salvation. I think the CC position is one is gladly baptized in hopes of being born in the Spirit, and seeing/having salvation.

Again, sorry for my sloppiness in response to your words.

Blessings

 

[ltwin]

But we are not Baptized ONLY for the forgiveness of committed sins Itwin (that is part of the reason, but there are MORE reasons too).

What OTHER reasons do you think Catholics Baptize people for?

I want to know what you think we assert so I can tailor my answer to your concerns.

The Catholic Church believes the chief effects of baptism are “purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.” The baptized becomes a new creature, receives adoption as a son of God and partakes in the divine nature. He becomes a co-heir with Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. He is given the grace of justification. He becomes a member of Christ’s Church. He is left with an indelible mark upon his soul, which seals him as belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if it keeps him from bearing the fruit of salvation.

How did I do?

Do you think infants are included among “all flesh” Itwin?

Yes, they are. I don’t think any Protestant is suggesting that infants are outside of God’s grace. We don’t believe baptism is salvific to begin with. Baptism outside of faith and repentance will not be effective to anyone. If someone gets in a baptismal line and lies about his faith in Christ, he just gets wet. If an infant is baptized, the effect is not less or greater than if his parents had simply dedicated the child to Christ and vowed to raise him or her in the way of God in the hope that in God’s time he would receive the gift of faith and believe on the Lord.

You cannot infer because infants are not “old enough (in your opinion) to prophesy when they are filled with the Spirit” that . . . . infants must be EXCLUDED from reception of the Holy Spirit.

That is a non-sequitur Itwin. It doesn’t follow. It is fallacious and invalid reasoning. It doesn’t work.

I never said they should be excluded from reception of the Holy Spirit, you put those words in my mouth. I said, they were not appropriate candidates for water baptism. The Holy Spirit is the Lord God Almighty. He is not bound by the rite of baptism. He moves in His time according to His own will. It’s certainly not for us to question how or why or to whom He gives the Spirit, as the Judaizing Christians in Acts discovered. We know that on at least one occasion an unborn child was filled with the Spirit (Luke 1:15).

It seems to me you wish the passage said He will pour our His Spirit upon “ALL ADULTS”.

But it doesn’t say that Itwin.

You are the one who keeps saying adults. I am referring to believers. As long as you’re old enough to profess belief in Christ, you can be baptized. Whether that’s 4 or 5 or whatever.

Besides. What makes you think at least in some cases, infants cannot prophecy?

Don’t you think God can give prophecy through an infant?

You DO affirm God can give prophecy through a donkey don’t you? (See Numbers 22:28)

God can do whatever he wants. Once the infant starts prophesying, then by all means baptize him or her, but you and I both know that would be an extraordinary case. The normative initiation of the Christian we see in Scripture is conviction of sins, believing the gospel, followed by a decision to repent and be baptized.

If that was true (it was), and if it was of God (and it was), then this IS a way God communicated through this infant Itwin.

That’s wonderful, but I’d still wait until the girl was old enough to profess faith before I baptized her.

I think if I showed you an example of an infant giving prophecy, I suspect you’d just deny it and then subsequently STILL deny infant Baptism Itwin.

Look, I’m Pentecostal. I take prophecy seriously. I would never deny or despise credible prophecy.

But I want to know

**1 Where you get the notion that God cannot give prophecy through infants since the time of Christ . . . and . . . .

2 Even if that were true, WHY would that EXCLUDE infants from “all flesh”. **

I don’t deny that God can use infants to prophesy. I only point out that an effect of the Spirit is to cause in those who have been so filled to prophesy and glorify God. Since we cannot know what God is or is not doing in the lives of infants, we would be wise to wait until they are old enough to tell us themselves. God’s grace is not irreparably tied to the physical act of baptism. It is my belief, and its representative of other evangelical Protestants, that there is no danger in waiting until children are older.

 

[Padres1969]

Thank you in advance for your response.

Is there any connection between the two? I mean most if not all infant circumcisions are medically, not religiously, based since circumcision is not a requirement of Christianity, Catholic or Protestant.