Infant Baptism - is it what God intended?

[AmbroseSJ]

susanlo:

There seems to be various understandings of baptism in the early centuries. I do know that infant baptism was occurring by the 3rd century, but as much as a century later some were not baptizing infants. The Didache and Justin Martyr’s First Apology are the earliest post-Biblical records of baptism that I am aware of and they seem to exclude the possibility of infant baptism.

Only to you and your radical reformer antecedents. To the world’s Catholics, both Eastern and Western, the world’s Orthodox Christians, as well as the world’s mainline Protestant churches, which probably encompasses 90% or more of the World’s Christians, most of whom date back to Apostolic times see infant baptism as being Apostolic in origin. They see infant baptism in both Sacred Scripture (however obliquely) and in an overwhelming number of post-Apostolic writings, explicitly stated.

One can also argue vehemently for a flat earth, and choose to ignore all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is a whole society for them too!

 

[mattp0625]

Hello

Let’s try looking at this from another angle.

The bible does not indicate the age of reason should be used for baptism.

There is also no mention of what that age should be. The age varies in practice.

Where do folks come up with the age of reason for baptism? It is an appeal to tradition. Compare this to sola scriptura.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Hello

Let’s try looking at this from another angle.

The bible does not indicate the age of reason should be used for baptism.

There is also no mention of what that age should be. The age varies in practice.

Where do folks come up with the age of reason for baptism? It is an appeal to tradition. Compare this to sola scriptura.

That whole age of reason argument is a ruse. In fact, the truth is, those who deny Infant Baptism ALSO deny Baptismal Regeneration. So they’re basically saying the age of reason is when they have the will to accept the Lord Jesus as their personal savior. Baptism is really irrelevant to salvation to them. It is their personal acceptance that saves them. (which to thoughtful Christians sounds like a work, and therefore they are being saved by their own works.)

 

[susanlo]

Hello

Let’s try looking at this from another angle.

The bible does not indicate the age of reason should be used for baptism.

There is also no mention of what that age should be. The age varies in practice.

Where do folks come up with the age of reason for baptism? It is an appeal to tradition. Compare this to sola scriptura.

There is no age of reason stated in the Bible. I think this is because every individual person is different in when they are able to fully understand and accept Jesus. When Jesus was on earth, the Jewish people considered 12 years old for girls and 13 years old for boys to be the age where they became fully accountable under the law. The OT Scriptures don’t give this age, nor did Jesus confirm or denounce this age guideline.

In Catholicism, the age of 7 is the age of reason. I don’t know when this age guideline started. If a mother and father with 2 children aged 6 and 8 decide to convert from another religion to Catholic Christianity, the parents would be baptized, the 6 year old would be baptized because of the parents’ wishes. The 8 year old would be too old for “infant” baptism, and would only be given baptism if he or she consent to it.

In the churches I have been a part of, children (and adults) can be baptized when they meet with a pastor and are able to show that they clearly understand what they are doing and are truly ready to accept Christ as their savior. There is no pre-set age.

The reason those who support believer’s baptism feel that people must be at the “age of reason” for baptism is because nowhere in the Bible was baptism ever given without individual belief and repentance. I wouldn’t believe that God would punish a baby who died in infancy, nor a baby that died in utero before it could even be baptized. Would God treat 2 babies who die in the NICU differently because someone else applied water to one and not the other? That hardly seems just. And I can’t wrap my brain around salvation coming directly and solely from the acts of another person with no inward cooperation.

This conversation has made me wonder if those who would support infant baptism would think that - if while I worked for years as a hospice nurse - if I would have used water and the proper words to baptize a terminally ill, incoherent patient who was never baptized (such as one of the many Jewish patients I had) and then that person died hours later, would they think the person would become a “saint” in heaven, having died without sin after their baptism. I am thinking they would say no, but if the person doesn’t have to believe and repent to become a baptized Christian, it should work…I don’t see the difference…

 

[mattp0625]

Apologies, I shouldn’t create discord.

We have different definitions, and should agree to disagree.

 

[Nita]

When we look back to 1st Century Jewish culture with large extended family households with no concept of “Original Sin,” how did they understand baptism?

They understood it as the means of being initiated into the New Covenant. The Jews already knew and had practiced infant initiation into God’s Old Covenant. Circumcision, at 8 days of age, was the initiation rite into the Old Covenant. d(Gen. 17:12-14)
Baptism replaced Circumcision as a Covenant initiation rite.

If there was to be a change in age, God would no doubt have made it known as He did regarding gender and nationality. (Gal. 3:27-28 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; …)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

susanlo:

The reason those who support believer’s baptism feel that people must be at the “age of reason” for baptism is because nowhere in the Bible was baptism ever given without individual belief and repentance. I wouldn’t believe that God would punish a baby who died in infancy, nor a baby that died in utero before it could even be baptized. Would God treat 2 babies who die in the NICU differently because someone else applied water to one and not the other? That hardly seems just. And I can’t wrap my brain around salvation coming directly and solely from the acts of another person with no inward cooperation.

Then you would have also had a problem with the Jews circumcision to enter into the Covenant with God which according to God’s own law was done on the 8th day after birth.

Your difficulty with babies dying without baptism should be no cause for worry. In the Catholic Church, we leave that in God’s hands too, just as we do ALL of the just people around the world, who for whatever reason never received Christianity. Do YOU suppose all of THOSE people are damned because they didn’t accept the Lord Jesus as their personal savior???

As I stated earlier, you are making a “work” of your own be your own salvation! That is in direct opposition to Faith alone! With Christian Baptismal Regeneration, it is the work of the Church (and the Holy Spirit) which admits the believer into the New Covenant. This is how it worked in the Bible, and how it still works in Biblical religions like Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and even mainline Protestant Churches.

 

[slh3016]

I heard a Catholic apologist (I forget who, but probably Scott Hahn or Steve Ray) make the point that the earliest Christians were all converts from Judaism. Their covenant with God INCLUDED their children from the very beginning so imagine how it would have come across to those adult Jews if St. Peter had told them that they were welcome to join the new and everlasting Covenant, but that their children were excluded until they were old enough to “accept Jesus into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior”

If it were me and my children, I’d probably say, “No, thank you. I’ll keep the covenant I have because it includes my whole family.”

 

[Thom18]

I find the rejection of infant baptism baffling. I can understand it on the grounds of, “It’s not explicit in Scripture,” but we were circumcising eight day old babies just a few thousand years ago, were we not? Just based on God’s decisions in the Old Testament, why would He suddenly want to keep babies out of His covenant when He included them before?

 

[Thom18]

I heard a Catholic apologist (I forget who, but probably Scott Hahn or Steve Ray) make the point that the earliest Christians were all converts from Judaism. Their covenant with God INCLUDED their children from the very beginning so imagine how it would have come across to those adult Jews if St. Peter had told them that they were welcome to join the new and everlasting Covenant, but that their children were excluded until they were old enough to “accept Jesus into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior”

If it were me and my children, I’d probably say, “No, thank you. I’ll keep the covenant I have because it includes my whole family.”

I’m pretty sure that’s Scott Hahn. I think he may have brought that up in Rome Sweet Home.

 

[slh3016]

I find the rejection of infant baptism baffling. I can understand it on the grounds of, “It’s not explicit in Scripture,” but we were circumcising eight day old babies just a few thousand years ago, were we not? Just based on God’s decisions in the Old Testament, why would He suddenly want to keep babies out of His covenant when He included them before?

Exactly! As I understand covenant theology, the covenant gets bigger and includes more people throughout time so the thought that it actually becomes more restrictive in terms of infants and children does not make sense in the larger scheme of things.

Frankly, I do have a hard time with those that believe that unbaptized infants (that died in utero or shortly thereafter) or those that die unbaptized through no fault of their own being damned. I have just as a hard time believing that those in the world to whom the gospel is never taken also dying damned for not accepting something they never knew to accept to begin with.

I am thankful for the Church’s teaching that we leave those to the mercy of God.

 

[susanlo]

They understood it as the means of being initiated into the New Covenant. The Jews already knew and had practiced infant initiation into God’s Old Covenant. Circumcision, at 8 days of age, was the initiation rite into the Old Covenant. d(Gen. 17:12-14)
Baptism replaced Circumcision as a Covenant initiation rite.

If there was to be a change in age, God would no doubt have made it known as He did regarding gender and nationality. (Gal. 3:27-28 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; …)

I don’t think that they understood baptism to replace circumcision, at least not right away. At first, only circumcised Jews were converts to Christianity. It was about 10 years after Christianity began when Acts 10 occurred and the first uncircumcised male (Cornelius) became a baptized Christian. This was surprising to all of the Jewish Christians because they didn’t know that someone uncircumcised could be filled with the Holy Spirit. Sometime after that Paul was sent to preach to the Gentiles (uncircumcised) and he knew that they needed baptism and not circumcision, but some of the Christians who were scattered after Stephen’s stoning (Acts 8:1) weren’t aware of what happened with Peter and Cornelius and were criticizing uncircumcised Christians. They thought that they needed to be circumcised before they became baptized and that they must follow the OT law as they had. In Acts 15 and Galatians 2 a meeting in Jerusalem was described where Paul and the leaders in Jerusalem notified Christians that it was not necessary to maintain the OT law. The group in Jerusalem wrote a letter, but although the letter implied they didn’t need circumcision along with other laws, it did not say that this was because baptism replaced circumcision. There continued to be disagreements about circumcision, and it certainly seems that many of these new Christians didn’t realize that baptism was a replacement of circumcision. This idea about a replacement may have come later. I am not sure when.

Is baptism a sign that one lives in a Christian household and applied to all people in a household including unbelieving hired employees? (Genesis 17:12-13) If baptism is a sign that one is in a Christian household, then it would make sense to baptize infants.

Or is baptism about atonement and repentance? Is baptism about turning from sin and deciding to follow Christ? If this is what baptism means, it would make more sense to 1st Century Jewish-Christians to time this at the age of 12 or 13 when children became accountable for atonement for their sins. Before this age Jewish children were ‘innocent’ and atonement and repentance was not required of them.

I have never thought that baptism was a replacement of a rite in the Old Testament. However, if it is similar to anything, it would probably be the ritual washings that were done when someone was being purified in order to come back to the Temple. I would think that this would be the most familiar comparison or ‘replacement’ for the 1st century Jewish converts.

 

[Church_Militant]

I think the fact that Polycarp was infant baptized in the days of the apostles settles the issue. There is no age of reason issue until later when catechesis begins for 1st confession and communion. This continues with pre-Cana classes for marriage, but the historical fact is that scripture implies infant baptism and Christian history shows examples.

 

[Nita]

I don’t think that they understood baptism to replace circumcision, at least not right away.

I meant “replace” in the sense that what circumcision was to the Old Covenant, Baptism was to the New Covenant. Sorry it wasn’t more clear.

At first, only circumcised Jews were converts to Christianity. It was about 10 years after Christianity began when Acts 10 occurred and the first uncircumcised male (Cornelius) became a baptized Christian. This was surprising to all of the Jewish Christians because they didn’t know that someone uncircumcised could be filled with the Holy Spirit. Sometime after that Paul was sent to preach to the Gentiles (uncircumcised) and he knew that they needed baptism and not circumcision, but some of the Christians who were scattered after Stephen’s stoning (Acts 8:1) weren’t aware of what happened with Peter and Cornelius and were criticizing uncircumcised Christians. They thought that they needed to be circumcised before they became baptized and that they must follow the OT law as they had. In Acts 15 and Galatians 2 a meeting in Jerusalem was described where Paul and the leaders in Jerusalem notified Christians that it was not necessary to maintain the OT law. The group in Jerusalem wrote a letter, but although the letter implied they didn’t need circumcision along with other laws, it did not say that this was because baptism replaced circumcision. There continued to be disagreements about circumcision, and it certainly seems that many of these new Christians didn’t realize that baptism was a replacement of circumcision. This idea about a replacement may have come later. I am not sure when.

I realize that early on some (the “circumcision party”) held one must be initiated into both Covenants. However, from the very start, the apostles knew a New Covenant was in effect (Jesus’ words at the Last Supper. Luke 22:20) and the need for Baptism to be initiated into the New Covenant (Mt. 28:19; Acts 2:38-41)

Is baptism a sign that one lives in a Christian household and applied to all people in a household including unbelieving hired employees? (Genesis 17:12-13) If baptism is a sign that one is in a Christian household, then it would make sense to baptize infants.

Or is baptism about atonement and repentance? Is baptism about turning from sin and deciding to follow Christ? If this is what baptism means, it would make more sense to 1st Century Jewish-Christians to time this at the age of 12 or 13 when children became accountable for atonement for their sins. Before this age Jewish children were ‘innocent’ and atonement and repentance was not required of them.

In Catholicism, Baptism is much more than just a sign. It is a sacrament – an outward/visible sign in which divine grace is dispensed to us.
In Baptism:
**we receive the grace of *“regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” * (Titus 3:5)
**we were “*washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” *(1 Cor 6:11)
*we become members of the “body of Christ” * (1 Cor 12:12, 13, 27)

If you’re interested in a fuller description of Catholic teaching on Baptism, here is a link to the Catechism on that topic. scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm

I have never thought that baptism was a replacement of a rite in the Old Testament. However, if it is similar to anything, it would probably be the ritual washings that were done when someone was being purified in order to come back to the Temple. I would think that this would be the most familiar comparison or ‘replacement’ for the 1st century Jewish converts.

Colossians 2:10-13 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

I’m unaware of any Scripture passages that link Baptism with Old Testament ritual washings. If you know of some, please share.

 

[susanlo]

I realize that early on some (the “circumcision party”) held one must be initiated into both Covenants. However, from the very start, the apostles knew a New Covenant was in effect (Jesus’ words at the Last Supper. Luke 22:20) and the need for Baptism to be initiated into the New Covenant (Mt. 28:19; Acts 2:38-41)

The Apostles knew baptism was necessary from the beginning. The very first day Peter preached full of the Holy Spirit: Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

It wasn’t until Acts 10 (10 years?) when they first had any inkling that circumcision didn’t need to come before baptism. They didn’t see it as a replacement, but as a way to be purified and have new life in Christ.

In Catholicism, Baptism is much more than just a sign. It is a sacrament – an outward/visible sign in which divine grace is dispensed to us.
In Baptism:
**we receive the grace of *“regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” * (Titus 3:5)
**we were “*washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” *(1 Cor 6:11)
*we become members of the “body of Christ” * (1 Cor 12:12, 13, 27)

If you’re interested in a fuller description of Catholic teaching on Baptism, here is a link to the Catechism on that topic. scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm

Thank you for sharing this.

Colossians 2:10-13 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

I’m unaware of any Scripture passages that link Baptism with Old Testament ritual washings. If you know of some, please share.

Paul is using circumcision as a metaphor. He is not saying that this is a new rite to replace the other. He also says that the person is symbolically dying and being raised through faith in in God. I don’t know if infants are capable of putting faith in God and personally repenting of their trespasses. It isn’t the same thing.

 

[susanlo]

I think the fact that Polycarp was infant baptized in the days of the apostles settles the issue. There is no age of reason issue until later when catechesis begins for 1st confession and communion. This continues with pre-Cana classes for marriage, but the historical fact is that scripture implies infant baptism and Christian history shows examples.

What is your source that Polycarp was infant baptized?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Nita:

I’m unaware of any Scripture passages that link Baptism with Old Testament ritual washings. If you know of some, please share.

Actually susanlo has some things right and some things wrong.

She is right to suppose that Baptism is linked with the ritual washing in OT. In fact the greek word used in the OT for those washings is Baptizo. The most important of those ritual washings in the OT were when the Israelites had defiled themselves by worshipping the golden calf. They were “washed” with the Mosaic ritual washing there in the desert, of their defilement.

The difference in the OT though, is that it was hereditary. Therefore, after the Israelites were “washed” or baptized in the desert, their descendants were automatically purified too. That is why only circumcision was necessary after 8 days. However, whenever a gentile was brought into the Covenant, they needed to be “washed” or baptized too. For males circumcision was also necessary, but it applied to the whole household, including infants.

Where susanlo is in error, is when saying: “I don’t think that they understood baptism to replace circumcision”

Connecting the story of Cornelius to the idea that baptism replaced circumcision is not correct. Jesus HIMSELF made this connection when he gave the Apostles the Great Commission to go to the ends of the earth teaching, baptizing and making disciples of all mankind. IF there had been a NEW way of entering into the Covenant which EXCLUDED children and infants, Jesus would have told his disciples explicitly, for this was not the way it was done in the Old Covenant, for over a thousand years.

In the story of Cornelius, Peter does indeed remark that even the pagans could be given the gift of the Holy Spirit, and this was a sign to EVERYONE that it was good and right to Baptize Cornelius (with his entire household, including infants.) However, Baptism was never withheld from Pagans or Gentiles, even before that. Note also that Cornelius does not make ANY statement about “accepting the Lord Jesus as his personal Savior.” The question of whether circumcision was ALSO necessary was in debate, which is documented in Acts.

 

[susanlo]

Actually susanlo has some things right and some things wrong.

She is right to suppose that Baptism is linked with the ritual washing in OT. In fact the greek word used in the OT for those washings is Baptizo. The most important of those ritual washings in the OT were when the Israelites had defiled themselves by worshipping the golden calf. They were “washed” with the Mosaic ritual washing there in the desert, of their defilement.

The difference in the OT though, is that it was hereditary. Therefore, after the Israelites were “washed” or baptized in the desert, their descendants were automatically purified too. That is why only circumcision was necessary after 8 days. However, whenever a gentile was brought into the Covenant, they needed to be “washed” or baptized too. For males circumcision was also necessary, but it applied to the whole household, including infants.

Where susanlo is in error, is when saying: “I don’t think that they understood baptism to replace circumcision”

Connecting the story of Cornelius to the idea that baptism replaced circumcision is not correct. Jesus HIMSELF made this connection when he gave the Apostles the Great Commission to go to the ends of the earth teaching, baptizing and making disciples of all mankind. IF there had been a NEW way of entering into the Covenant which EXCLUDED children and infants, Jesus would have told his disciples explicitly, for this was not the way it was done in the Old Covenant, for over a thousand years.

In the story of Cornelius, Peter does indeed remark that even the pagans could be given the gift of the Holy Spirit, and this was a sign to EVERYONE that it was good and right to Baptize Cornelius (with his entire household, including infants.) However, Baptism was never withheld from Pagans or Gentiles, even before that. Note also that Cornelius does not make ANY statement about “accepting the Lord Jesus as his personal Savior.” The question of whether circumcision was ALSO necessary was in debate, which is documented in Acts.

I don’t think Acts 10 states the ages in the household or the ages of those who heard the message and displayed evidence (tongues) of being filled with the Holy Spirit or who was baptized. We would be making our own opinions if we said that there were or were not infants there.
It doesn’t say that Cornelius made a “confession of faith,” but was overwhelmed with the Spirit. Did he have to make a statement like the Apostles’ Creed before getting baptized in the water? I don’t know.
Did they baptize uncircumcised people before this? I really didn’t know that. I will look into that. I thought this was the first instance.

 

[Nita]

The Apostles knew baptism was necessary from the beginning. The very first day Peter preached full of the Holy Spirit: Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

It wasn’t until Acts 10 (10 years?) when they first had any inkling that circumcision didn’t need to come before baptism. They didn’t see it as a replacement, but as a way to be purified and have new life in Christ.

I agree – primarily because most of the early converts were Jews who had already been circumcised. The separation of Christianity from Judaism must have been sorrowful for those who’d been fervent Jews. Jesus’ parable about not being able to put new wine into old wineskins was being fulfilled (Mt. 9:17).

Paul is using circumcision as a metaphor.

Yes, precisely because of the symbolic connection the two have in regards to the relationship they have to their respective covenants.

He is not saying that this is a new rite to replace the other…

Again, sorry my use of the word “replace” gave a meaning I didn’t intend. Baptism did not replace circumcision – if it did, it would mean baptism would now be the initiation rite into the Old Covenant.
I hope the explanation in my previous post clarified what I did mean.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

St. Peter in Acts speaks to the Jews who helped to capture and kill Our lord. They were cut t.o the heart by his words and asked “What are we to do?” He said, "Repent and be Baptised EVERY ONE of you. He did not say, Except you little ones. Every One of you means just that. I’d call that pretty early on…