Infant Baptism in Mark 16:16

[CutlerB]

Hello everyone,

I was reading something about the claim of the Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) that there have always been those who share their beliefs and they are the true Christianity. They list many groups, none of which can honestly be regarded as their predecessor. One of the listed groups includes the “Brethren Minor”. The Watchtower quotes part of their “Acta Unitatis Fratrum” in which the Brethren Minor openly criticise the Church for some of its beliefs and practices. Among those quotes is one on Infant Baptism, which I will quote here:

Baptism: “The Lord Christ told his apostles: Go into all the world, preach the Gospel to all creation, to those who would believe. (Mark, chapter 16) And only after these words: and being baptized, they will be saved. And you teach to baptize little children who lack their own faith.”

While I am aware and agree with all the evidence for Infant Baptism, I have difficulty understanding Mark 16:16 in relation to this. Can you help?

Thank you, and Merry Christmas!

 

[robwar]

That is a phony translation from Watchtower. They have been known to change a number of verses to support their views. Don’t use their stuff and Bible, it is inaccurate and that quote is not correct.

 

[CutlerB]

That is a phony translation from Watchtower. They have been known to change a number of verses to support their views. Don’t use their stuff and Bible, it is inaccurate and that quote is not correct.

I’m afraid it is correct.

“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” — St Mark 16:16, Douay Rheims Bible

 

[MarcoPolo]

In Catholic theology, we believe the parents supply the faith in proxy for the child who is unable. Even in Scripture, when there are people who are “unable” to come to Jesus in the normative way, Christ accepts someone’s plea on their behalf. Think of the centurian’s servant who is healed because of the faith of the centurian (Mt 8:5-13), or the paralytic who was healed and forgiven because of the faith of his friends (Mk 2:3-5), or the Canaanite woman whose daughter is healed of demonic affliction at the intercession of the mother (Mt 15:22-28). In the same way, we believe the parents’ faith can be accepted for the spiritual “healing” of the infant who him/herself is not able to come to Christ normatively. Intercession is all over Scripture and it is not proper for someone to absolutize Mark 16:16 in a vacuum without granting that concept.

The early Church fortifies infant baptism as well:*“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (c. A.D. 180).

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 (c. A.D. 248)*

 

[Regina_Love]

God has granted us parents authority over our children’s welfare. The Church recognises our authority to choose Baptism for the good of our child. There is also the “Baptism of desire”. Say your baby or child dies before you had them baptised, yet had they lived you would have Baptised them. The Bible states, “He and his entire household” joined the Church and were Baptised.

 

[dmar198]

Hello everyone,

I was reading something about the claim of the Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) that there have always been those who share their beliefs and they are the true Christianity. They list many groups, none of which can honestly be regarded as their predecessor. One of the listed groups includes the “Brethren Minor”. The Watchtower quotes part of their “Acta Unitatis Fratrum” in which the Brethren Minor openly criticise the Church for some of its beliefs and practices. Among those quotes is one on Infant Baptism, which I will quote here:

While I am aware and agree with all the evidence for Infant Baptism, I have difficulty understanding Mark 16:16 in relation to this. Can you help?

Thank you, and Merry Christmas!

Re: the historicity of the JWs, there’s a good article about that here. I recommend you take a look at it if you’re interested – it has some comments about the Acta Unitatis text, though not in regards to the question of infant baptism.

Re: Mark 16:16, their argument is that, “It says those who believe should be baptized, therefore everyone must be old enough to believe before they can be baptized.” Well that doesn’t follow. It is talking about those who can believe and it says they should be baptized. It says nothing about infants and so nothing can be concluded from the passage about infants.

Actually, I have seen one attempt to use Mark 16:16 to show that you do not have to believe in order to be baptized, but I don’t understand the argument. It’s at scripturecatholic.com and it reads like this: "Jesus says to the crowd, ‘He who believes and is baptized will be saved.’ But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with ‘He who does not believe will be condemned.’ This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a ‘believer’s baptism.’ " So whatever that means. But perhaps you can make some sense out of that argument.

 

[dmar198]

Actually after I started digging a little I found a much better exegesis of Mark 16:16 at a Protestant website where the author supports infant baptism. Here’s the text of his argument, slightly altered:

Those who reject infant Baptism practice what they call a “Believer’s Baptism.” On the basis of Mark 16:16 (“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.”), they claim that a person must believe and be able to confess his faith before receiving Baptism. According to this way of thinking, since infants are unable to believe and confess, they are excluded from Baptism. Only those who have reached the “age of reason,” or the “age of accountability” are baptized.

This position is specious for a number of reasons.

First of all, Mark 16:16 is not speaking chronologically. In other words, the text is not saying first believe and then be baptized. The verbs “believe” and “baptized” are participles. Any Christian who was baptized as an infant can confidently say now that he is older, “I believe, and I have been baptized.” The commission of our Lord Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20 commands us to make disciples by “baptizing and teaching.” If we read this text chronologically, we would contend that teaching follows Baptism. But, it is not intended to be chronological.

The opponents of infant Baptism teach that a person must first believe, confess their faith, be saved. and then baptized. From this perspective, Mark 16:16 should read, “Whoever believes and is saved will be baptized,” rather than “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.”

Second, the issue not whether or not an infant can believe. Infants are not baptized because they believe. They are baptized because of the clear Word, command and promise of God. They are baptized on account of God’s grace, not on account of their faith. Martin Luther writes, “For my faith does not constitute Baptism but receives it” (Tappert: p. 443).

I especially like that middle paragraph. It illustrates that if the text is read chronologically, it shows that baptism saves, because baptism comes before being saved, whereas if you read it non-chronologically, you can be baptized even before you believe – hence as an infant. That helps explain the commentary I noted in my other post (above this post).

I also like the paragraph that starts out “First of all” because it shows that the words “believe” and “be baptized” are participles describing those who will be saved (i.e. at the end of time). Therefore it doesn’t exclude infant baptism, because that’s just giving babies one of the conditions for final salvation: they’ve still got more to do when they get older. (But of course if they die when they are infants, and have been baptized, then they still get into heaven. Even those who reject infant baptism believe that babies go to heaven even though they can’t yet believe.)