Infant Baptism - is it what God intended?

[Nita]

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.

Thanks for the connection to the Greek word.
However, the washing in this instance seems more symbolic of the New Covenant sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation than to Baptism.

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.

Interesting. I’d never heard of that before. Is there a Scripture passage? Or, do you have links to any sources? Tried googling & couldn’t find anything.

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.

Thanks. I can see how this particular ritual washing is symbolic of NT baptism since it is part of the initiation rite into the Old Covenant. Scripture doesn’t contain the command and from what I read online it’s not certain when the practice of “washing” became necessary for converts. jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v02-n10/baptism

 

[Church_Militant]

What is your source that Polycarp was infant baptized?

CHAPTER 9 (LINK) 9:1 But to Polycarp, as he entered the arena, there came a voice from heaven, saying, Be strong, and play the man, O Polycarp. And the speaker no man saw; but the voice those of our people who were present heard. And when he was brought in there was a great tumult, when men heard that Polycarp was apprehended.

9:2 Then, when he had been brought in, the proconsul asked him if he was Polycarp. And when he confessed, he would have persuaded him to deny, saying, Have respect unto thine age, and other things like these, as is their custom to say: Swear by the fortunes of Caesar; Repent; Say, Away with the Atheists. But Polycarp, when he had looked with a grave face at all the multitude of lawless heathen in the arena, having beckoned unto them with his hand, sighed, and looking up unto heaven, said, Away with the Atheists!

9:3 And when the proconsul pressed him, and said, Swear, and I will release thee, revile Christ; Polycarp said, Eighty and six years have I served him, and in nothing hath he wronged me; and how, then, can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?

If Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his execution and he states that he has been a Christian for 86 years, then …

 

[catholic1seeks]

St. John Chrysostom wrote:

“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”
– John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6.

That is such a beautiful quote and testament to baptism.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The bottom line is that* this *type of question expresses why God willed the church to be a living witness to the truth, just at it was in Acts 15 when the Apostles and presbyters/elders (priests) authoritatively decided on circumcision and Gentile admission into the church.

You can pretty much find whatever you want in the Bible to justify just about any theological position. You can do this and still claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. But ultimately, it is only with the Tradition of the church that we frame the biblical text in its proper context.

Baptism is a matter of salvation. I think it is supremely irrational to think God would so love us to become incarnate and redeem us just for that message of salvation to become lost and uncertain over the ages. No, God has provided the answer to infant baptism – the same way he provided the answer in the first century, through the binding authority of the church guided by the Spirit. Even if we want to ignore the church’s authoritative teaching voice today, the constant witness of Christian history is PRO infant baptism.

Pre-Protestant churches, East and West, practice infant baptism. Even more, eastern churches still confirm infants and even give the Eucharist to them. For such as these belong the kingdom of Heaven!

Just a small note. There is nothing contrary to say that a person should be in a state of relationship with God before that person can make a choice or sin. After all, the first members of our species (Adam and Eve, etc.) were created in a state of union with God – only to reject that relationship. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with an infant being raised in a union with God before he or she can make a deliberate choice against HIm.

 

[susanlo]

CHAPTER 9 (LINK) 9:1 But to Polycarp, as he entered the arena, there came a voice from heaven, saying, Be strong, and play the man, O Polycarp. And the speaker no man saw; but the voice those of our people who were present heard. And when he was brought in there was a great tumult, when men heard that Polycarp was apprehended.

9:2 Then, when he had been brought in, the proconsul asked him if he was Polycarp. And when he confessed, he would have persuaded him to deny, saying, Have respect unto thine age, and other things like these, as is their custom to say: Swear by the fortunes of Caesar; Repent; Say, Away with the Atheists. But Polycarp, when he had looked with a grave face at all the multitude of lawless heathen in the arena, having beckoned unto them with his hand, sighed, and looking up unto heaven, said, Away with the Atheists!

9:3 And when the proconsul pressed him, and said, Swear, and I will release thee, revile Christ; Polycarp said, Eighty and six years have I served him, and in nothing hath he wronged me; and how, then, can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?

If Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his execution and he states that he has been a Christian for 86 years, then …

Do we know the exact year of his martyrdom?
I don’t believe that his exact birthdate and age at martyrdom are known. He could have been 94 and baptized at 8 years old.
But what I find most confusing is the idea that one needs to be baptized to serve the Lord. Many children and youth pray and actively serve God as they are learning and growing in faith, though their baptism may be delayed until they fully understand what baptism means. Was Polycarp serving God when he was an infant or toddler? He may have been from his earliest memories. I think he could have served the Lord his whole life and received baptism at 13 years old. I don’t think that this would be a contradiction.

 

[fbl9]

Do we know the exact year of his martyrdom?
I don’t believe that his exact birthdate and age at martyrdom are known. He could have been 94 and baptized at 8 years old.
But what I find most confusing is the idea that one needs to be baptized to serve the Lord. Many children and youth pray and actively serve God as they are learning and growing in faith, though their baptism may be delayed until they fully understand what baptism means. Was Polycarp serving God when he was an infant or toddler? He may have been from his earliest memories. I think he could have served the Lord his whole life and received baptism at 13 years old. I don’t think that this would be a contradiction.

Our understanding of what baptism is and does, differs greatly from yours. It is because of the difference in understandings of baptism that we baptize infants.
If we had the same understanding of baptism you would see the need for infant baptism. Just Like Luther did.

As a side note it is interesting to see that as we get farther from the early fathers of ‘read the bible and your understanding is correct’ the more things that these early ones had in common with the Church are being thrown out.

 

[Vico]

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.

There is hope. Yet we have the de fide dogma that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

It is from the second General Council of Lyons (1274 A.D.) and the Council of Florence (1438-45 A.D.) which declared:
the souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell but their punishment is very different.

Gospel of John 3:5
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

According to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ludwig Ott):

Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia.

Also he wrote:

The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra·…sacramental manner through baptism by blood (c£ the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire-Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire-H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi Sacrament (baptism of suffering-H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

susanlo:

But what I find most confusing is the idea that one needs to be baptized to serve the Lord.

That should be no difficulty. Look again at Cornelius the Centurion. He was praying and his prayers were acceptable to God, even in his pagan state. God granted him a special vision of how to proceed, by calling for Peter.

What Baptism does is gives us a new life. We are born again, by the water and the Spirit. This new life is our entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. None of the OT patriarchs and saints, all the way until St. John the Baptist were admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven. That is why Jesus said “and the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he [John the Baptist.]” Think: Jesus spent his whole ministry preaching the Kingdom of Heaven, not salvation by Faith alone, even though Faith is the first and most important step in entering into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Baptism is absolutely crucial to understand properly in order to be a Christian that has entered into the Kingdom of Heaven.

However, even believers outside the Kingdom of Heaven, through no fault of their own, can love and serve God. God, in his infinite love and mercy will ultimately guide such souls into the Kingdom (like Cornelius the Centurion.)

 

[susanlo]

That should be no difficulty. Look again at Cornelius the Centurion. He was praying and his prayers were acceptable to God, even in his pagan state. God granted him a special vision of how to proceed, by calling for Peter.

Cornelius is a good example. He served the Lord for years by praying and giving alms before he became baptized.
I don’t think the fact that Polycarp said at his martyrdom that he served the Lord for 86 years, it is proof that he was exactly 86 years old at that time and baptized as an infant. It isn’t very solid evidence. That is what my point was.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Cornelius is a good example. He served the Lord for years by praying and giving alms before he became baptized.
I don’t think the fact that Polycarp said at his martyrdom that he served the Lord for 86 years, it is proof that he was exactly 86 years old at that time and baptized as an infant. It isn’t very solid evidence. That is what my point was.

Again, the issue should be: How does God want us to know the answer, and has he provided it?

The New Testament is not a theological manual or a “How-To-Do-Church” guide. It is God’s love letter. And in his written word, He indicates that He will be with his body on Earth to guide it into all truth. For this reason there were Apostles and bishops – given authority to shepherd and teach (Matt. 18:18; Matt. 16:16-18; John 20:21-23; 1 Tim. 3:15; Acts 15).

 

[slh3016]

Again, the issue should be: How does God want us to know the answer, and has he provided it?

The New Testament is not a theological manual or a “How-To-Do-Church” guide. It is God’s love letter. And in his written word, He indicates that He will be with his body on Earth to guide it into all truth. For this reason there were Apostles and bishops – given authority to shepherd and teach (Matt. 18:18; Matt. 16:16-18; John 20:21-23; 1 Tim. 3:15; Acts 15).

In the lack of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary from Scripture, the point goes to history/tradition, and in this case, the history and tradition of the Church reveal the case for infant baptism is firmly established. There is no point debating it any further. The burden of proof is on the one who denies it to prove that the early Church didn’t practice infant baptism and Scripture and early Church writings are vague at best.

 

[susanlo]

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…

As I keep reading through Acts 2 and think about what the 1st century Jewish people thought and understood with “Repent and be baptized, every one of you,…”

At this time they didn’t have the concept of Original Sin. Jewish people believe that there children are born pure and innocent. Peter doesn’t seem to explain to them that their children are tainted with hereditary sin. Jewish children don’t repent or atone of sin (officially) until age 12 or 13. The concept of Original Sin took centuries to develop.

As we have discussed earlier in this thread, they had no inkling that this rite was to replace circumcision. It would be about 10 years when Peter first had a vision and met with Cornelius’ family. The sons born in the months and years after this day in Acts 2 were certainly still circumcised at a bris in the same way that they were before.

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you,…” Did they think this included the children?

Similar to my example on the first page, if I were to tell a group of American citizens that there is an important election coming up and I say “You need to vote, every one of you.” Would the people in the group think that their children should vote? Would it seem like an error the way I stated it because I didn’t specify that only those over 18 properly registered could vote? Would someone read about what I said centuries later and assume that in the US we allowed children and infants to vote?

I just can’t imagine that in their circumstances that they thought their children needed to be repent or be cleansed of sin or were able to believe in Jesus.

I think over the centuries as the concept of Original Sin trickled in. This explanation was given for baptizing infants, but I don’t think it was understood and practiced in the 1st century.

 

[fbl9]

As I keep reading through Acts 2 and think about what the 1st century Jewish people thought and understood with “Repent and be baptized, every one of you,…”

At this time they didn’t have the concept of Original Sin. Jewish people believe that there children are born pure and innocent. Peter doesn’t seem to explain to them that their children are tainted with hereditary sin. Jewish children don’t repent or atone of sin (officially) until age 12 or 13. The concept of Original Sin took centuries to develop.

As we have discussed earlier in this thread, they had no inkling that this rite was to replace circumcision. It would be about 10 years when Peter first had a vision and met with Cornelius’ family. The sons born in the months and years after this day in Acts 2 were certainly still circumcised at a bris in the same way that they were before.

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you,…” Did they think this included the children?

Similar to my example on the first page, if I were to tell a group of American citizens that there is an important election coming up and I say “You need to vote, every one of you.” Would the people in the group think that their children should vote? Would it seem like an error the way I stated it because I didn’t specify that only those over 18 properly registered could vote? Would someone read about what I said centuries later and assume that in the US we allowed children and infants to vote?

I just can’t imagine that in their circumstances that they thought their children needed to be repent or be cleansed of sin or were able to believe in Jesus.

I think over the centuries as the concept of Original Sin trickled in. This explanation was given for baptizing infants, but I don’t think it was understood and practiced in the 1st century.

book of Job 14: 4-5 states that there is no unclean man no matter how short his days.
book of Psalms 50; 7 in guilt i was born.
Are you sure of your sources that tell Jewish people of that time considered their children innocent?

 

[susanlo]

book of Job 14: 4-5 states that there is no unclean man no matter how short his days.
book of Psalms 50; 7 in guilt i was born.
Are you sure of your sources that tell Jewish people of that time considered their children innocent?

I am not professing to be an expert in Judaism, but I read that they don’t. I posted a thread on Original Sin in the Non-Catholic Religion section before and a Jewish and Muslim member both stated that their religions don’t believe in original sin.

The OT Jewish people would make sacrifices at the temple for the sins they committed. They didn’t have a sacrifice performed for Original Sin.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Original_Sin.html

pathoftorah.com/jewish-apologetics/original-sin/

myjewishlearning.com/article/the-jewish-view-of-sin/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#In_Judaism

 

[rcwitness]

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.

Baptism is “an initiation” into the covenant family of God. It is the washing of sins which kept man and God separated. Jesus was the former of God, who made possible this reconciliation. He commanded His Apostles to “Baptize all nations”.

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.

There is an obvious difference between the Baptism of an adult and that of an infant. Other requirements and conditions apply to the infant for Baptism to have the same effect as the adult. Though I’m not saying the principle effect of Baptism of a child is lacking. Both Baptisms are valid and efficatious, though the state of the infant lacks certain necessary elements.

CCC # 1231: Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here.

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.

Baptism doesn’t relate to everything about Circumcision, since it is a new a different Covenant. It does replace the Initiation rite of the People of God into the Covenant.

 

[rcwitness]

At this time they didn’t have the concept of Original Sin. Jewish people believe that there children are born pure and innocent. Peter doesn’t seem to explain to them that their children are tainted with hereditary sin. Jewish children don’t repent or atone of sin (officially) until age 12 or 13. The concept of Original Sin took centuries to develop.

I disagree that Jews had no concept of Original Sin.

1 Cor. 7
To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean but as it is they are holy.

 

[rcwitness]

Cornelius is a good example. He served the Lord for years by praying and giving alms before he became baptized.

Yes. This gets into the difficult matter of whether Gentiles were “saved” or not. That is a different topic. But where it may overlap this one, is when the Lord accepted Gentiles into the Covenant. That, I believe, happened at this point in history, and it was through Peter’s mouth and his command to Baptize them (Gentiles) just like Jewish believers. The children of either Jew or Gentile believers were also “made holy” by through their belief. I believe the Catholic understanding, is that part of belief (and privileged) for a Christian parent is to bring our children into the forgiving Covenant of Jesus. The aspect, which some don’t live up to, is the part about:

CCC 1251*Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.

 

[Mintaka]

The only reason that Baptism was ever delayed among early Christians were:

• Delay of baptism until the eighth day after birth, in order to imitate circumcision more closely. (This was condemned, as noted before.)
• Delay of baptism until extreme old age or just before death. This was done in order to be able to sin during life abut still get one’s sins instantly remitted by baptism. That way, one could theoretically escape the penances assigned by the Church to people who sinned seriously in their post-baptismal lives as full Christians. Basically, using Baptism as a “get out of embarrassing penitence” card.

This was condemned pretty hugely, especially since it led to kids and young people getting deprived of living a full Christian life and never being able to go to Mass in full. (You couldn’t attend Mass after the Gospel and homily if you were not yet baptized, and thus were not in on the secret of the Eucharist and Communion.) There are a lot of moving sermons on the beauty of being baptized as an infant, of always being an initiate of all the Christian mysteries, and how that was the way the earliest Christians did it.

 

[Vico]

As I keep reading through Acts 2 and think about what the 1st century Jewish people thought and understood with “Repent and be baptized, every one of you,…”

At this time they didn’t have the concept of Original Sin. Jewish people believe that there children are born pure and innocent. Peter doesn’t seem to explain to them that their children are tainted with hereditary sin. Jewish children don’t repent or atone of sin (officially) until age 12 or 13. The concept of Original Sin took centuries to develop.

As we have discussed earlier in this thread, they had no inkling that this rite was to replace circumcision. It would be about 10 years when Peter first had a vision and met with Cornelius’ family. The sons born in the months and years after this day in Acts 2 were certainly still circumcised at a bris in the same way that they were before.

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you,…” Did they think this included the children?

Similar to my example on the first page, if I were to tell a group of American citizens that there is an important election coming up and I say “You need to vote, every one of you.” Would the people in the group think that their children should vote? Would it seem like an error the way I stated it because I didn’t specify that only those over 18 properly registered could vote? Would someone read about what I said centuries later and assume that in the US we allowed children and infants to vote?

I just can’t imagine that in their circumstances that they thought their children needed to be repent or be cleansed of sin or were able to believe in Jesus.

I think over the centuries as the concept of Original Sin trickled in. This explanation was given for baptizing infants, but I don’t think it was understood and practiced in the 1st century.

Re: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you,…” Did they think this included the children?
Whole families were baptized together, and that infants were baptized was reported by Saint Irenaeus.

There was belief that sin of previous generations brought punishment to the children.

Exodus 34:6-7

6 So the Lord passed before him and proclaimed: The Lord, the Lord, a God gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in love and fidelity, 7 continuing his love for a thousand generations, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin; yet not declaring the guilty guiltless, but bringing punishment for their parents’ wickedness on children and children’s children to the third and fourth generation!

Leviticus 26:39
39 Those of you who survive will waste away in the lands of their enemies, for their own and their ancestors’ guilt.

Wis 2:24 But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are allied with him.

John, 9:1-12:
1 As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him.

Romans 5:19
19 For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I disagree that Jews had no concept of Original Sin.

1 Cor. 7
To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean but as it is they are holy.

Actually what you have quoted is Biblical testimony of infant baptism. What St. Paul is saying is that BECAUSE of the believing wife, who is married to the unbelieving husband, YET THEIR CHILDREN ARE HOLY. By “Holy” is meant they were baptized. This is one of the classic Pauline euphemisms for Baptism. For the sake of the Children then, St. Paul urges the believing wife to remain with the unbelieving Husband. IOW, St. Paul is saying that THROUGH the BELIEVING WIFE her husband is consecrated and their children are Baptized (made Holy.)

This really has nothing to do with Original Sin AFAIK. (Except how it relates to baptism)