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

[Cathoholic]

I said:

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

benhur. You said:

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.

From my post 31.

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.

Good call benhur. My apologies. I can see how someone can read that and come up with what you came up with.

Unclear writing by me (again).

I need to clarify.

I just meant St. Peter was talking to these guys on Pentecost in Acts, and this discourse was for them.

I anticipated someone might object saying: “Didn’t these Jewish people on Pentecost need to ‘be catechized’ too. After all, you Catholics catechize adult catechumens before Baptizing them.”

And I was attempting to remind them that at least some catechesis had already taken place.

Either by the action of the Holy Spirit along with St. Peter’s teaching, or understanding how Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism (which would be especially evident after the Resurrection), or more likely, both.

That’s all.

I did not mean to infer catechesis is the ONLY thing going on here.

These people implicitly had faith (a natural faith before Baptism), they exhibited repentance, and they knew (at least to some extent) what they were getting in to (they were to some extent catechized when it came time for their Baptism later that day).

Good call on this benhur. Again many thanks.

 

[Cathoholic]

Itwin. You said:

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?

Itwin. I think you did super!

You did miss the CCC quote about how Baptism is always accompanied by faith and that would be relevant here too.

I am not going to cite it here (as I am not by my computer to do the word search program that I usually use).

You also didn’t mention . . .

The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism.

But overall, great!

You also said:

Baptism outside of faith . . . will not be effective to anyone

.

We affirm that Itwin (see above—Baptism is “ALWAYS” accompanied by faith). People who refuse belief, cannot be Baptized. Catholics would call that refusal an “impediment to the Sacrament”.

Filling out the above quote a little more, you also said . . . .

Baptism outside of faith and repentance will not . . . .

“Repentance” is irrelevant in the case of infants.

For “repentance”, you first need to have something to “repent of” Itwin.

Repentance is not applicable to infants.

And you have already admitted infants don’t sin.

Yes St. Peter told the men of Judea to “repent” in Acts 2 (and so does the Catholic Church do again today).

But that acknowledges they have something to repent of (which they do—they need to repent of their sins. Sins Itwin, which infants do not have).

You also said . . .

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.

And you are wrong here Itwin. People who are Baptized receive the Holy Spirit. I’ve already quoted the verse.

You also said . . .

I said, they (infants) were not appropriate candidates for water baptism. The Holy Spirit is the Lord God Almighty. He is not bound by the rite of baptism.

WE are bound by Baptism Itwin. Yes God is NOT bound by His Sacraments but we know of no other means of entry into Eternal Beatitude.

CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Infants are a great example of those who ARE appropriate for Baptism Itwin. The Holy Spirit is the Lord God Almighty.

• The Lord God Almighty was not bound by the rite of “personal acceptance” for circumcision in the Old Covenant.
• And the Lord God Almighty is not bound by the rite of “personal acceptance” for Baptism in the New Covenant either.

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, . . .

You also said:

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.

Yet it has been you that has been questioning the giving of the Holy Spirit to Infants Itwin.

CCC 1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

 

[Cathoholic]

CCC 527 Jesus’ circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham’s descendants, into the people of the covenant. It is the sign of his submission into the Law and his deputation to Israel’s worship, in which he will participate throughout his life. This sign prefigures that “circumcision of Christ” which is Baptism.

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, . . .

OK. I also found the CCC quote about Baptism ALWAYS being connected with faith (despite not being at my computer).

From the CCC (emphasis mine) . . . .

Baptism in the Church

CCC 1226 From the very day of Pentecost the Church has celebrated and administered holy Baptism. Indeed St. Peter declares to the crowd astounded by his preaching: "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."26 The apostles and their collaborators offer Baptism to anyone who believed in Jesus: Jews, the God-fearing, pagans.27 Always, Baptism is seen as connected with faith: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household,” St. Paul declared to his jailer in Philippi. And the narrative continues, the jailer "was baptized at once, with all his family."28

CCC 1227 According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ’s death, is buried with him, and rises with him:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.29

The baptized have "put on Christ."30 Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.31

CCC 1228 Hence Baptism is a bath of water in which the “imperishable seed” of the Word of God produces its life-giving effect.32 **St. Augustine says of Baptism: “The word is brought to the material element, and it becomes a sacrament.”**33

 

[Peter_J]

Some parents–theist or not–do it for what they believe are health reasons, not for religious purposes.

.

Yes, but I am wondering how Non-Catholics who appreciate the Bible as Sacred Scripture

You’re right, there are Non-Catholics like that. I’ve met some on CAF.

 

[ltwin]

. “Repentance” is irrelevant in the case of infants.

For “repentance”, you first need to have something to “repent of” Itwin.

Repentance is not applicable to infants.

And you have already admitted infants don’t sin.

Yes St. Peter told the men of Judea to “repent” in Acts 2 (and so does the Catholic Church do again today).

But that acknowledges they have something to repent of (which they do—they need to repent of their sins. Sins Itwin, which infants do not have).

I understand your position. The simple fact is that since repentance is irrelevant to infants, then they are not proper candidates for baptism.

And you are wrong here Itwin. People who are Baptized receive the Holy Spirit. I’ve already quoted the verse.

We’re just not going to agree on that.

WE are bound by Baptism Itwin. Yes God is NOT bound by His Sacraments but we know of no other means of entry into Eternal Beatitude.

God’s grace, and the Scriptures teach us how this is communicated to us–by faith.

Infants are a great example of those who ARE appropriate for Baptism Itwin. The Holy Spirit is the Lord God Almighty.

• The Lord God Almighty was not bound by the rite of “personal acceptance” for circumcision in the Old Covenant.
• And the Lord God Almighty is not bound by the rite of “personal acceptance” for Baptism in the New Covenant either.

If you mean that circumcision/baptism works apart from what you call “personal acceptance” but what the Bible calls faith, I disagree. If you mean that the covenant blessings represented by circumcision/baptism can be apprehended apart from “personal acceptance”/faith, I disagree. Paul, the former Pharisee, also disagreed writing in Romans 2:25-29 the following:

25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 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.

Circumcision was not physical to Paul. It was a “matter of the heart” and a work of the Spirit. Outward circumcision counted for little in Paul’s economy, and, in fact, he all but says it means nothing if you do not keep the law (verse 25). However, he recognized that even an uncircumcised Gentile who kept the law was spiritually circumcised and that is what mattered.

While circumcision was given on an ethnic basis, Christianity is not and never has been an ethnic religion. From the very beginning, Christians were called to remain in their own cultures,nations, and families. They were not called out as the Jewish proselytes were and required to become ethnically Jewish. There has never been a rationale to baptize the infants of believing parents.

In regards to Colossians 2, it is a “circumcision not performed by human hands.” The circumcision and the baptism he speaks of is inward and spiritual. The outward acts signify and represent and yes serve to strengthen in some way the inner work by the Spirit.

Yet it has been you that has been questioning the giving of the Holy Spirit to Infants Itwin.

I have never said God could not pour out his Spirits on newborns. What I said was, they are not appropriate candidates for baptism until they can tell us themselves that God has done so.

 

[Tommy999]

Thank you in advance for your response.

I was baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian tradition but also was baptized by immersion – at my request – when I repented of my sins and accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior as a teenager after attending a Billy Graham crusade at which I had the most profound spiritual awakening of my life. I have been a Christ-follower even since.

As for our kids, my wife and I had our two boys “dedicated” in the Methodist Church as infants even though baptism was offered by our pastor as the norm. Later, when old enough to understand and voluntarily desire to repent of their sins and follow Christ, they were baptized around age 8 or 9 at a Southern Baptist Church we attended for a few years when my wife was teaching at their school (they had a rule was that if you taught at their school, you had to attend their church).

I think most evangelical Protestants see baptism like Itwin has described, and he explained it much better than I ever could.

To me, evangelical Protestant baptism and Catholic ‘Confirmation’ appear to be roughly similar (although I could be wrong on that), so long as the Confirmation is voluntary and not forced on the person receiving it by their parents or done solely as a social norm. Baptism (in the evangelical sense) is done when the person being baptized is old enough to understand what is going on and consent to it, because it is an action that follows a critically important decision to follow Christ that an infant ostensibly is not old enough to make, outside of the miraculous.

As for circumcision, I was not circumcised as a child but our kids were. I didn’t necessarily see the need to do that for our children either but my wife wanted it done, so I went along with it out of respect to her wishes, especially since she had to do most of the work in bringing them into this world.

As an act of solidarity with my sons, I decided to be circumcised after I saw how painful it was for my oldest and after deciding that I couldn’t put him through something that I wasn’t able to endure myself. I think he did a better job as an infant with it than I did as an adult.
.

 

[Tommy999]

**I was baptized as an infant **in the Presbyterian tradition but also was baptized by immersion – at my request – when I repented of my sins and accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior as a teenager after attending a Billy Graham crusade at which I had the most profound spiritual awakening of my life. I have been a Christ-follower even since.

As for our kids, my wife and I had our two boys “dedicated” in the Methodist Church as infants even though baptism was offered by our pastor as the norm. Later, when old enough to understand and voluntarily desire to repent of their sins and follow Christ, they were baptized around age 8 or 9 at a Southern Baptist Church we attended for a few years when my wife was teaching at their school (they had a rule was that if you taught at their school, you had to attend their church).

I think most evangelical Protestants see baptism like Itwin has described, and he explained it much better than I ever could.

To me, evangelical Protestant baptism and Catholic ‘Confirmation’ appear to be roughly similar (although I could be wrong on that), so long as the Confirmation is voluntary and not forced on the person receiving it by their parents or done solely as a social norm. Baptism (in the evangelical sense) is done when the person being baptized is old enough to understand what is going on and consent to it, because it is an action that follows a critically important decision to follow Christ that an infant ostensibly is not old enough to make, outside of the miraculous.

As for circumcision, I was not circumcised as a child but our kids were. I didn’t necessarily see the need to do that for our children either but my wife wanted it done, so I went along with it out of respect to her wishes, especially since she had to do most of the work in bringing them into this world.

As an act of solidarity with my sons, I decided to be circumcised after I saw how painful it was for my oldest and after deciding that I couldn’t put him through something that I wasn’t able to endure myself. I think he did a better job as an infant with it than I did as an adult.
.

Is it the Catholic position that my infant baptism predisposed me to be able to come to Christ later in life during my spiritual awakening as a teenager or are they not related at all? Just curious on the Catholic position on this as to what graces are bestowed at infant baptism.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’d been staying out of this, since the OP ignored my initial questions, and then the ran out, but anyway:

Is it the Catholic position that my infant baptism predisposed me to be able to come to Christ later in life during my spiritual awakening as a teenager or are they not related at all?

It is the Catholic position that your infant baptism is your one and only baptism. That you later chose to be immersed or otherwise simulate baptism is a non-issue.

A person is either baptized, or unbaptized. An unbaptized person who is baptized with water, the trinitarian formula, and the intention to baptize becomes baptized and nothing can ever undo it nor re-do it.

To me, evangelical Protestant baptism and Catholic ‘Confirmation’ appear to be roughly similar (although I could be wrong on that)

You are mistaken about that, but don’t take it too hard – Many Catholics are also mistaken about the sacrament of Confirmation. (Not least of all because it is routinely delayed in western practice)

The eastern churches routinely confirm (chrismate) infants and it can also be done in the west if there is danger of death. Confirmation has nothing to do with “coming of age” nor “being an adult in the Church” nor other nonsense, but everything to do with the completion of baptismal grace.

tee

 

[benhur]

I anticipated someone might object saying: “Didn’t these Jewish people on Pentecost need to ‘be catechized’ too. After all, you Catholics catechize adult catechumens before Baptizing them.”

And I was attempting to remind them that at least some catechesis had already taken place.

HI C,

Thanks for post.

Understand your point of catechesis then baptism. Not sure who would raise that issue on our text of first sermon/Penetecost.

Either by the action of the Holy Spirit along with St. Peter’s teaching, or understanding how Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism (which would be especially evident after the Resurrection), or more likely, both.

That’s all.

I did not mean to infer catechesis is the ONLY thing going on here.

Got it.

These people* implicitly had faith* (a natural faith before Baptism), they exhibited repentance, and they knew (at least to some extent) what they were getting in to (they were to some extent catechized when it came time for their Baptism later that day).

Good call on this benhur. Again many thanks

Your welcome…but shucks , just when we hit amiable point I am compelled to ask about "natural faith "? (yes it is implicit in the text they had faith, or had just received faith /repented of unbelief in Christ). As you know, that was a big point for me, that they had just received supernatural faith (for both reasons you rightly noted)and were just were born again, born of the Spirit, for flesh can not believe, or see the kingdom and its Savior, this new birth before water baptism, which is contrary to CC doctrine, where one is born again with and in baptism.

Blessings

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur. You asked in post 91 . . .

I am compelled to ask about "natural faith "? (yes it is implicit in the text they had faith, or had just received faith /repented of unbelief in Christ). As you know, that was a big point for me, that they had just received supernatural faith (for both reasons you rightly noted)

We were just discussing that on another thread here and here.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14368524&postcount=80

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14368535&postcount=81

 

[rcwitness]

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

I believe there are fundamental differences with Circumcision and Baptism, in as much as there are differences in the Old Covenant and it’s Law, and with the New Covenant and it’s Law. Yet both have similarity because they are an initiation into the Covenant.

One can argue that faith and repentance is necessary for Baptism to have an effect. And there are degrees that Catholics can agree with this. Though we would say that the final purpose of Baptism is lost, if belief, faith and keeping Christ’s commands are lacking. The immediate purpose is effectual, in that grace of forgiveness of sins is applied, personally, and acceptance into the Communion of Jesus is initiated.

Remember, belief, faith and keeping God’s commands was necessary for circumcision to have lasting success also. But that still did not exclude children from receiving.

When Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”*I think this could very well include children under the age of reason. I also think the traditions of that time had a more profound sense of the meaning of a “household”. There was more authority assumed by the head of a household. What he or she believed and practiced, covered the people under their little jurisdiction. It’s kinda like the Passover. Those who were in the house of one who obeyed the command to sacrifice and put blood over the door, we’re saved. It doesn’t guarantee a Once for Always salvation, but it guarantees forgiveness and acceptance into the Covenant family, who is saved by the Blood of the Covenant.

 

[benhur]

I believe there are fundamental differences with Circumcision and Baptism, in as much as there are differences in the Old Covenant and it’s Law, and with the New Covenant and it’s Law. Yet both have similarity because they are an initiation into the Covenant.

One can argue that faith and repentance is necessary for Baptism to have an effect. And there are degrees that Catholics can agree with this. Though we would say that the final purpose of Baptism is lost, if belief, faith and keeping Christ’s commands are lacking. The immediate purpose is effectual, in that grace of forgiveness of sins is applied, personally, and acceptance into the Communion of Jesus is initiated.

Remember, belief, faith and keeping God’s commands was necessary for circumcision to have lasting success also. But that still did not exclude children from receiving.

When Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”*I think this could very well include children under the age of reason. I also think the traditions of that time had a more profound sense of the meaning of a “household”. There was more authority assumed by the head of a household. What he or she believed and practiced, covered the people under their little jurisdiction. It’s kinda like the Passover. Those who were in the house of one who obeyed the command to sacrifice and put blood over the door, we’re saved. It doesn’t guarantee a Once for Always salvation, but it guarantees forgiveness and acceptance into the Covenant family, who is saved by the Blood of the Covenant.

Hi rc,

Are the two rites(water baptism/circum) initiation or symbols of initiation…physical symbols/acts to represent a spiritual reality?..

I would be careful to dogmatically say that forgiveness of sins is incumbent upon the rite or the desire for the rite, as well as receiving the gift of the HS. We do have a few verses that may seem to suggest that, as we a few, maybe more, that suggest otherwise. Discernment is also needed because very often in Writ the two , the spiritual reality and the physical rite , followed each other very closely, obediently (no waiting , putting off or joining a catechists class if spiritual reality occurred).

I would also differentiate between being born again, born of God, born of the spirit, regenerated (4 terms meaning the same thing) and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. For sure the apostle were born again before Pentecost. The Spirit was with them.At Pentecost the Spirit would be in them and in power. The 3000 saved at Peter’s first sermon were born again(they gladly heard the word and wanted to show it) but were then to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, as the apostles received at Pentecost, perhaps after baptism, as did a few other folk in instances in Acts. Yet we have gentiles receiving new birth and the gift of the Holy Spirit at the same time ,and before water baptism in Acts also.

Bottom line. Been infant circumcised ? You still need to be born again. Been infant baptized ? You still need to be born again. By no work of righteousness are we saved. Yet if we are saved we will obediently do works of righteousness. We are saved by Jesus Christ and His workings in us, by a spiritual reality first. No one water baptizes unless this happens first. And no one can believe unless Christ has rebirthed the inner man.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Are the two rites(water baptism/circum) initiation or symbols of initiation…physical symbols/acts to represent a spiritual reality?..

The Rite is an initiation into the body of believers. It is a sign of what God has freely done for us. The water symbolizes a 2ashing. But the name of the Trinity is called on (invoked) to effect on the individual, what is symbolized. Yet this washing is not for “the removal of dirt on the body” but sin in our souls.

I would be careful to dogmatically say that forgiveness of sins is incumbent upon the rite or the desire for the rite, as well as receiving the gift of the HS. We do have a few verses that may seem to suggest that, as we a few, maybe more, that suggest otherwise. Discernment is also needed because very often in Writ the two , the spiritual reality and the physical rite , followed each other very closely, obediently (no waiting , putting off or joining a catechists class if spiritual reality occurred).

I wouldn’t dogmatic ally say anything. I am not a member of the Magisterial office. Maybe you are looking at Baptism as a mere ritual and not an obedience to His command? His command has a very strong authority.

I would also differentiate between being born again, born of God, born of the spirit, regenerated (4 terms meaning the same thing) and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. For sure the apostle were born again before Pentecost. The Spirit was with them.At Pentecost the Spirit would be in them and in power. The 3000 saved at Peter’s first sermon were born again(they gladly heard the word and wanted to show it) but were then to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, as the apostles received at Pentecost, perhaps after baptism, as did a few other folk in instances in Acts. Yet we have gentiles receiving new birth and the gift of the Holy Spirit at the same time ,and before water baptism in Acts also.

The birth and infancy of the Church had situations that were not yet completed in a common way. Some were Baptized without calling on the Holy Spirit, some were awaiting the Hands of the Apostles to establish the faithfull. Belief is ultimately a necessary condition on Baptism. Without belief, an Infant Baptism is incomplete. A person of the age of reason IS aware of the purpose of the Rite, so belief is necessary at that moment.

Bottom line. Been infant circumcised ? You still need to be born again. Been infant baptized ? You still need to be born again. By no work of righteousness are we saved. Yet if we are saved we will obediently do works of righteousness. We are saved by Jesus Christ and His workings in us, by a spiritual reality first. No one water baptizes unless this happens first. And no one can believe unless Christ has rebirthed the inner man.

Yes. Maybe the only thing we disagree about is that we say an “inner-rebirth” is not of much value, if water Baptism is denied. An inner rebirth seeks the Baptism of the Lord. We already agree that an Infant Baptism is not of much value, if “inner-rebirth” is denied. I believe it is this point, that Jesus was making, when He said, “Whoever believes and is Baptized, will be saved.”

 

[angeltime]

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.

Peace…Circumcision becomes a little more difficult when the person is older - there is more pain and even possible infection to watch for. With the baby, it is quick, simple and cleaner. I think Baptism for the baby is important because one has to ask themselves - “baptized into what?” After the Baptism, the child should be guided into a faith journey supported and accompanied by his/her family and faith community. This is more difficult to find when one is Baptized as an adult although as we know is done regularly (RCIA). If not handled properly, an individual can feel isolated in their faith. angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Peter_J]

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

Echoing rcwitness, there’s no question that there are differences between baptism in the new covenant and circumcision in the old. But the question should be: can you (using those differences if they help) explain why infants would be excluded in the one case but not in the other?

(Incidentally, Scott Hahn and youtube.com/watch?v=JwxHzo0QVYY both touch on this point IIRC.)

 

[benhur]

Echoing rcwitness, there’s no question that there are differences between baptism in the new covenant and circumcision in the old. But the question should be: can you (using those differences if they help) explain why infants would be excluded in the one case but not in the other?

(Incidentally, Scott Hahn and youtube.com/watch?v=JwxHzo0QVYY both touch on this point IIRC.)

Hi Peter,

Only after you explain why females are excluded from Old but not New rite…LOL

I also posted infant baptism might be ok, so long as it is symbolic, and not effectual rebirth of the spirit as taught practiced by many.

I would also suggest that covenants have different purposes. The old was both spiritual and national, out of which salvation would come thru a Savior. The nation Israel , the “jews” would bring forth the Christ child. It was understood that the spiritual aspect of Israel would go up and down, so long as there was a remnant. But the "race’’ had to grow and prosper(so circumcise all infants ) and from that God would move. The physical aspect of the nation was not conditional (you were circumcised period) as was their spiritual health (maybe you were born of God , maybe you were not, but you were still a “Jew”).

The church is different. It is to be more concise. It is to be of those that are born of God. It is primarily to be a spiritual house thru which God moves. Christ will return irregardless of the church, unlike the OT where you needed at least two Jews (Mary and Joseph and at least one synagogue/priest/rabbi to do rites on Jesus fulfilling the Law).

Only true believers are to testify and proclaim, and make disciples. Nominal Christians or Christians in name only do not help the cause, but hurt it. At least in the OT a Jew in name only could at least have children and teach them spiritual tradition and maybe the child will be spiritual, and you add to the “nation” irregardless. So infant baptism does not add spiritual souls to the church per say. The best you can say is that the child is “sanctified” toward that end of spiritual life, as maybe circumcision was/is, or a disbelieving spouse staying with a believer is, yet God wishes all to be saved and is not a respecter of persons. I think an infant from a spiritual nurturing Christian couple is “sanctified” with or without infant baptism.

Again, I think anabaptsists were more against saying that baptism was effectual, regenerating Spirit giving. I am wondering if the more effectual infant baptism was taught and practiced the more baptists grew. That is, if anabaptists sprang up around 1100 or 1200 Ad was it due to the evolving of teaching/practice and effects of effectual infant baptism just prior to that ? (negative effects of many Christians in name only, like old Israel). I also do not think infant baptism was widespread (like today in CC) till well after fall of western empire.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The Rite is an initiation into the body of believers. It is a sign of what God has freely done for us. The water symbolizes a 2ashing. But the name of the Trinity is called on (invoked) to effect on the individual, what is symbolized. Yet this washing is not for “the removal of dirt on the body” but sin in our souls.

Hi rc,

Still think it is symbolic, not effectual. Not sure but someone said it better on CAF but that as it is not washing dirt off body it is not washing of sin form souls, for faith in the Blood does that , yet it is for a clean conscience, as when we are obedient.

I wouldn’t dogmatic ally say anything. I am not a member of the Magisterial office. Maybe you are looking at Baptism as a mere ritual and not an obedience to His command? His command has a very strong authority.

No , not a mere ritual and yes to obedience(ritual or effectual) irregardless.

The birth and infancy of the Church had situations that were not yet completed in a common way. Some were Baptized without calling on the Holy Spirit, some were awaiting the Hands of the Apostles to establish the faithfull. Belief is ultimately a necessary condition on Baptism. Without belief, an Infant Baptism is incomplete. A person of the age of reason IS aware of the purpose of the Rite, so belief is necessary at that moment.

I like most of this but the underlined is the most implicit and not explicit in Writ.

Yes. Maybe the only thing we disagree about is that we say an “inner-rebirth” is not of much value, if water Baptism is denied. An inner rebirth seeks the Baptism of the Lord. We already agree that an Infant Baptism is not of much value, if “inner-rebirth” is denied. I believe it is this point, that Jesus was making, when He said, “Whoever believes and is Baptized, will be saved.”

Ok. You are right that I would say the inner birth is much value, irregardless of water baptism. But yes obedience to the rite is desirable. As to the last verse, you will not perish if you are not baptized. You will perish if you do not believe. Thankfully most who believe are baptized.

Blessings

 

[Cathoholic]

Itwin said:

The simple fact is that since repentance is irrelevant to infants, then they are not proper candidates for baptism.

No Itwin. This is wrong.

Infants ARE proper candidates for Baptism because they still have Original Sin.

Original Sin is the lack of sanctifying grace.

You infer babies automatically have sanctifying grace Itwin. But you are wrong.

(What “age” or “event” do you think BABIES necessarily fall OUT of grace Itwin? And please cite a Bible verse to back up your claim.)

You essentially have being “born” as a “Sacrament” Itwin.

But we need to be “born AGAIN” according to Jesus. Being “born” isn’t good enough Itwin.

We need to be “born AGAIN” or “born ANEW” or as Jesus clarifies, we need to be born of water AND the Spirit (Baptized).

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.

CCC 1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

---

I said:

People who are Baptized receive the Holy Spirit. I’ve already quoted the verse.

Itwin replied . . . .

We’re just not going to agree on that.

Let’s look at more detail on this . . . .

The Holy Spirit through St. Peter:

be baptized . . . for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. . . . . the promise is to you and to your children . . . .

Cathoholic:

be baptized . . . for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. . . . . the promise is to you and to your children . . . .

. .

Itwin:

We’re just not going to agree on that.

More of the passage to fill out context . . .

ACTS 2:38-39a 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 . . . .

---

Itwin. You said:

If you mean that circumcision/baptism works apart from what you call “personal acceptance” but what the Bible calls faith, I disagree.

No Itwin.

Babies didn’t make a personal decision to “accept Yahweh” in the Old Covenant.

And babies didn’t make a personal decision to accept being circumcised on the eighth day in the Old Covenant either.

Yet by their parent’s choice who have God-given authority, infants were still “Covenanted” to God via circumcision.

. . . . continued . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

*The continuation . . . . *

Yet by their parent’s choice infants were still “Covenanted” to God via circumcision.

GENESIS 17:10, 12a, 13b-14 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. . . . 12a He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations. . . . 13b 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."

Now I agree, the Old Covenant (and circumcision) did not bring SALVATION. You and I agree on this. (You were cut off from your people. Not cut off from God.)

But it was still a “Covenanting” to God through circumcision. Not salvific, but at least pedagogical (it taught).

• Circumcision in the Old Covenant had teaching value for what was to come in the New Covenant—Baptism

This teaching value is part of the advantage that circumcision afforded the Jews. And circumcision WAS an advantage for the Jewish people.

ROMANS 3:1-2a Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. . . . .

WHY was circumcision an “advantage” to the Jews Itwin?

Circumcision could never “save” anyone. So WHY was it an “advantage”?

Circumcision was an “advantage” to the Jewish people not because it could “save” but because it could “teach”.

Circumcision of the flesh could be a teaching instrument for something BETTER that was to come in the New Covenant—Circumcision of the heart—Baptism.

ROMANS 2:29b, 3:1-2 29 real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. . . . 1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

Again. Not that circumcision could save (it couldn’t) but circumcision could teach concerning what was to come in the New Covenant.

The purpose is the teaching value of circumcision is the foreshadowing of better things to come

The purpose is the teaching value of circumcision is the foreshadowing of better things to come.

That’s part of the REASON WHY the Holy Spirit through the Letter to the Hebrews says . . . .

HEBREWS 10:1a 1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities . . . .

Now Hebrews 10:1 in context concerns Temple Sacrifices.

But the PRINCIPLE of a lesser Old Testament prefigurement leading up to a much greater New Testament fulfillment is the same.

That’s also part of the reason WHY Jesus says . . . .

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 fulfill them.

That’s part of the reason WHY St. Paul says . . . .

ROMANS 2:29b 29 real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. . .

That’s WHY St. Paul ALSO says . . .

COLOSSIANS 2:11-12a 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 . . . .

(This is the mind of the Church for essentially two thousand years Itwin. I already showed you that in post 47 when St. Cyprian of Carthage rebuked a heretic who tried to change this “mind” way back in about 250 A.D.)

New Covenant Baptism is the fulfillment of Old Covenant circumcision.

Fulfillments are always greater than their “types” or prefigurements or foreshadowings.

Just like Adam who was a “type” of Jesus would be lesser and Jesus would be greater—infinitely greater.

ROMANS 5:14 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

WHY would “circumcision” be an “advantage” for the Jew over the Gentile?

Because it incorporated a teaching tool to very social fabric of the Jews who were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Since circumcision was never unto salvation, it could only be unto “much value” in teaching about something that would be given later (and admittedly some other more minor things).

If mere circumcision of the flesh (which is NOT unto salvation) was an important Covenantal teaching under the Old Law, WHAT do you think the FULFILLMENT of “circumcision” is in the New Covenant?

The answer is Baptism.

Baptism is HOW you put on “the circumcision of Christ.”

Excerpt from COLOSSIANS 2:11-12a 11 In him . . . with a circumcision made without hands . . . the circumcision of Christ . . . you were buried with him in baptism . . . .

COLOSSIANS 2:11-12a 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 . . . .

Circumcision is a mere foreshadowing of something bigger, better, and broader in the New Covenant.

Circumcision is a mere foreshadowing of Baptism.

 

[angeltime]

Pax! “Reborn Again or Born Anew” speaks of being born again in the spirit - has nothing to do with wombs and the maternity ward. To be reborn in the spirit one must be born with the waters of Baptism/Exorcism according to Jesus. This is a beginning - a beginning that has washed away the sin of Adam and Eve. It is a cleansing, and a prep for the journey in spiritual life which also has to be nurtured and continued with family members, community and parish life - sacraments. Waiting until the baby is older or old, prevents or denies them the grace they are entitled to receive to begin the spiritual journey especially in the “light” of receiving a Sacrament. angeltime:angel1: