Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scitor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Scitor

Guest
I posted the below reply to a thread I saw in my email that related to infant baptism. But after posting, I noticed the last post was in 2011. I guess my post was a little late. With that said, below is my post.

First, give you are Catholic it is my assumption you believe the “Catholic” church was formed at the point when Christ said to Peter “on this rock I will build my church.” If this is the case you are incorrect in stating the Catholic church has been baptizing infants for 2000 years. The fact is that infant baptism did not become a part of the Catholic church until the fourth century. And if you study early church history you will know that there was much disagreement within the church about infant baptism at this time all the way up to the Reformation. Infant baptism became the norm through intimidation and cruel force. A law of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II in the year 413 says, “If any person is convicted of having undertaken the rebaptism of a member of the Catholic Church, the one who has committed this shameful crime together with the one provided he is of accountable age who has allowed himself to be baptized shall be punished with death without mercy.” Consequently, infant baptism reigned supreme because people didn’t want to lose their lives.

Catholics claim Peter was the first Pope and you mention the Early Church Fathers. If that is your basis, let’s use the earliest church fathers…the apostles and authors of the New Testament. There is no record of infant baptism from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. Please show me one example of infant baptism. It was Peter in the first sermon on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 says, “Repent and be baptized.” Infants cannot repent. In every example of baptism in the bible, baptism is preceded by belief in Christ and repentance.

Not trying to pick a fight or point fingers. Just laying out the facts. As far as OSAS, well, it is very biblical, but I won’t go into it unless you ask.
 
Well the fact is that St. Paul states that Baptism is the equivalent to circumcision.

Circumcision is the ordinary means of being accepted into the Israel family. It is normally carried out at 8 days for newborns. BUT if you are a convert then it has to be done at whatever age the conversion takes place.

Abraham was quite mature when he underwent circumcision.
On the other hand Baptism is the ordinary means we enter into the new covenant with God instituded by Jesus.

If St. Paul states that it is equivalent to circumcision what makes you think that the same rules would not apply?

Notice, a new convert to Jewish faith, needs to first learn it, be converted and BE circumcised.
However ALL his household that converts with him is ALSO circumcised at the same time. None of this nonsense of “waiting untll they can make a profession of faith”

Same would apply to a Greek or Roman or even a Jewish family for that matter converting.
It is obvious that the formation into the faith, Judaism or Christianity befalls onto the parents. They are responsible for that, in Judaism or in Catholic Christianity.

There are many passages in the Bible that attest to this. All the members in the household being baptized.

These are the facts. Of course you are free to reject them. It would not be the first instance nor the last.

–
 
Scitor said:
I posted the below reply to a thread I saw in my email that related to infant baptism. But after posting, I noticed the last post was in 2011. I guess my post was a little late. With that said, below is my post.

First, give you are Catholic it is my assumption you believe the “Catholic” church was formed at the point when Christ said to Peter “on this rock I will build my church.” If this is the case you are incorrect in stating the Catholic church has been baptizing infants for 2000 years. The fact is that infant baptism did not become a part of the Catholic church until the fourth century. And if you study early church history you will know that there was much disagreement within the church about infant baptism at this time all the way up to the Reformation. Infant baptism became the norm through intimidation and cruel force. A law of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II in the year 413 says, “If any person is convicted of having undertaken the rebaptism of a member of the Catholic Church, the one who has committed this shameful crime together with the one provided he is of accountable age who has allowed himself to be baptized shall be punished with death without mercy.” Consequently, infant baptism reigned supreme because people didn’t want to lose their lives.

Catholics claim Peter was the first Pope and you mention the Early Church Fathers. If that is your basis, let’s use the earliest church fathers…the apostles and authors of the New Testament. There is no record of infant baptism from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. Please show me one example of infant baptism. It was Peter in the first sermon on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 says, “Repent and be baptized.” Infants cannot repent. In every example of baptism in the bible, baptism is preceded by belief in Christ and repentance.

Not trying to pick a fight or point fingers. Just laying out the facts. As far as OSAS, well, it is very biblical, but I won’t go into it unless you ask.
Click to expand...
catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism
catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism

Please stick to one topic at a time. If you want to debate OSAS then start a separate thread for that.
 
Why not straighten out your Protestant brothers before aiming your guns at the Catholic Church?

From the Wiki:
“Denominational families that practise infant baptism include Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Nazarenes,[4] the United Church of Christ (UCC), Moravian Church, Metropolitan Community Church, Wesleyans, Episcopalians, and the Reformed churches.”
Click to expand...
You had better counsel these brothers, as well as those over at C.A.R.M. who do not baptize. Or the Salvation Army. Or the many others who reject baptism altogether. Their souls are at risk and you are flaming on the Catholic Church! Really?

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox have the Apostolic Tradition that has been handed down through the millennia. The Baptists reject that. So, why not live with your opinion and let those who follow the Apostles live with theirs?

The Catholic Church - dartboard of the world.
 
Scitor said:
. Infant baptism became the norm through intimidation and cruel force. A law of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II in the year 413 says, “If any person is convicted of having undertaken the rebaptism of a member of the Catholic Church, the one who has committed this shameful crime together with the one provided he is of accountable age who has allowed himself to be baptized shall be punished with death without mercy.” Consequently, infant baptism reigned supreme because people didn’t want to lose their lives.

.
Click to expand...
I think you are being a little disingenuous saying the emporer made infant baptism the law then quoting a law that forbids re-baptism of a person who was baptized as an infant. You say this is were infant baptism starts yet clearly this law applies to people who WERE baptized as infants already. It is a law against re-baptism.

I would like to see some credible evidence to support your claim that infant baptism started centuries after the ancient church. The sacred tradition of both the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox churches, who were the only Christians around before the protestant revolt, states that infant baptism has been around from the beginning. Indeed scripture says entire households were baptized. Households that undoubtedly included infants.

Iraneus in 189 a.d., Origin in 248 a.d., cyril of Carthage 254 a.d… etc… etc… all testify (centuries before your supposed law) that you are incorrect and the church practiced infant baptism from the beginning.

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). Hippolytus

“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” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). Origen

There are more quotes if you need further proof.
 
Scitor said:
First, give you are Catholic it is my assumption you believe the “Catholic” church was formed at the point when Christ said to Peter “on this rock I will build my church.” If this is the case you are incorrect in stating the Catholic church has been baptizing infants for 2000 years. The fact is that infant baptism did not become a part of the Catholic church until the fourth century. And if you study early church history you will know that there was much disagreement within the church about infant baptism at this time all the way up to the Reformation. Infant baptism became the norm through intimidation and cruel force. A law of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II in the year 413 says, “If any person is convicted of having undertaken the rebaptism of a member of the Catholic Church, the one who has committed this shameful crime together with the one provided he is of accountable age who has allowed himself to be baptized shall be punished with death without mercy.” Consequently, infant baptism reigned supreme because people didn’t want to lose their lives.

Catholics claim Peter was the first Pope and you mention the Early Church Fathers. If that is your basis, let’s use the earliest church fathers…the apostles and authors of the New Testament. There is no record of infant baptism from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. Please show me one example of infant baptism. It was Peter in the first sermon on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 says, “Repent and be baptized.” Infants cannot repent. In every example of baptism in the bible, baptism is preceded by belief in Christ and repentance.
Click to expand...
Ummm, infant baptism was supported by Irenaeus in the second century:
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
And by Hippolytus in the third century:
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
And also Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory of Nazianz, John Chrysostom, and the Council of Carthage V…
And let’s not forget Augustine, a Protestant favorite:
“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

And these were all before the invention of the doctrine by Theodosius II! How interesting!😉
 
You are wrong with your whole post. Their is not a single fact. First of all, when Jesus said to Peter, You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, you know why he was speaking to him? Look at Matthew 16:17, Jesus says, Peter Bar-Jonah, he is personalizing, he’s letting Peter know, hey I’m speaking to you. Besides we all know that Peter’s birth name was Simon, Jesus changed his name to Peter which is Rock. Second, the Early Church Fathers all understood that Peter was the rock, they taught this before the Bible was put together. Third, Peter’s remain are known to be underneath St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican.

On infant baptism. Like people here have posted the Early Church Fathers went and told people baptize everyone including infants. Once again and posts here have shown, this was done way before the Bible was put together. We all also have historical facts that infants were baptized. I have seen historical facts that as early as 120, infants were being baptized. That’s 200 years earlier than what you stated. Also, other Christian denominations, including Lutherans baptize infants. That’s who started the Protestant Reformation, and your church followed. So maybe your church has it wrong. Lastly, even the Bible states that infants were baptized. If we see, on 5 occasions it is stated that the “whole family” was baptized. In OT times, whole families meant everyone, from great grandpa, to the little ones. In the NT theirs 2 good verses that demonstrate that “whole families” means everyone. In Luke 19:9 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham, we see that Jesus understands and states that a whole house, a family is everyone. Also in 1 Timothy 3:12 Deacons may be married only once and must manage their children and their households well. Here it says that a deacon must manage their children and household well. I don’t think that infants are not part of the equation
 
Repenting is something that you do. Baptism is something that you receive. An infant’s original sin is not wiped away at baptism because they do/don’t repent. It is wiped away simply because they are a human being that God treasures, and He wills that they be cleansed from original sin. It is a glorified circumcision and marks your entrance into Israel. The nature of baptism is most easily understood with an infant, because the infant is one that is both helpless and incapable, although it is the same way with an adult.

This is why many protestant denominations springing off of Catholicism continued to have infant baptisms, because it is understood that grace is something that is received and there is no prerequisite to passing X age. The beginning of the Church was a Church of all adult converts from Judaism or paganism, but for a Catholic, an explicit example in scripture is irrelevant (although people having their entire household’s baptized does include children and possibly babies). The bishops were the ones that assembled the scriptures in the first place, and there was never any intent whatsoever to include a spinet of every last detail within its pages. This is why later protestant denominations trying to structure their worship and practices exclusively off of a small handful of letters some dude wrote in the NT are so chaotic and disagreeing with one another, because that isn’t why the NT exists in the first place. But that leads into a whole other topic on the subject of where authority comes from in the Church.
 
Your argument lacks any understanding of the historical context and is illogical.

These laws instigated by the civil authorities related to the Donatist heresy in North Africa. The Donatists weren’t advocates of ‘believers Baptism’. Their issues related to whether a Priest could validly perform the sacrament of Baptism if he himself was not in a state of grace.

Your premise that this law meant people baptised infants to save lives is illogical. If a couple had a baby and were advocates of ‘believers Baptism’ would this law not led to them delaying their child’s Baptism until the child was able to repent, ensuring they had one valid Baptism? Baptising their infant would in fact increase the chance of the death penalty, because the child would then need to be Re-Baptised when old enough to repent.
 
Scitor said:
There is no record of infant baptism from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. Please show me one example of infant baptism. It was Peter in the first sermon on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 says, “Repent and be baptized.” Infants cannot repent. In every example of baptism in the bible, baptism is preceded by belief in Christ and repentance.
Click to expand...
“For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Acts 2:39

The word for children used here in Greek is “teknon”. According to the Greek Lexicon it literally means a male child. But can also be used for plural children regardless of sex. Some might say that that simply means offspring. In a sense that’s true, but if he meant generational offspring the word used would be “genos”. So in this sense the correct understanding is literally “children”.

It seems clear to me that Peter is commanding the children to be baptized into the promise.
 
JerryZ said:
Well the fact is that St. Paul states that Baptism is the equivalent to circumcision.

Circumcision is the ordinary means of being accepted into the Israel family. It is normally carried out at 8 days for newborns. BUT if you are a convert then it has to be done at whatever age the conversion takes place.

Abraham was quite mature when he underwent circumcision.
On the other hand Baptism is the ordinary means we enter into the new covenant with God instituded by Jesus.

If St. Paul states that it is equivalent to circumcision what makes you think that the same rules would not apply?

Notice, a new convert to Jewish faith, needs to first learn it, be converted and BE circumcised.
However ALL his household that converts with him is ALSO circumcised at the same time. None of this nonsense of “waiting untll they can make a profession of faith”

Same would apply to a Greek or Roman or even a Jewish family for that matter converting.
It is obvious that the formation into the faith, Judaism or Christianity befalls onto the parents. They are responsible for that, in Judaism or in Catholic Christianity.

There are many passages in the Bible that attest to this. All the members in the household being baptized.

These are the facts. Of course you are free to reject them. It would not be the first instance nor the last.

–
Click to expand...
Paul most certainly does not state infant baptism is equal to circumcision. That is a very very far reach.

Every Jewish baby boy was circumcised, every one of them. It was a sign that they belonged to the people called the Jews. It was a sign that they belonged to the nation Israel. It was not a sign of salvation. Right? Not a sign of salvation. What did Paul say in Romans 9? “Not all Israel is Israel.” He even said in Romans 9, “Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated.” Most Jews are under divine judgment. They were in the past, they were a rebellious and disloyal nation. And among that entire nation of circumcised people, there was a small remnant that believed.

Think about it. If you make infant Baptism the substitute sign for circumcision, does that mean then that we now have a church that is a false church, or a rebellious church, or an unbelieving church, or an apostate church but it’s still a church and somewhere in the middle there’s a remnant of true believers? You see, circumcision was only a sign that people belonged to an ethnic group, a group called Jews, a nation called Israel. It said nothing about their spiritual condition. Baptism is always tied to salvation. There’s no parallel. There’s no connection.

Also, circumcision didn’t apply to girls. Circumcision was really a gift from God to protect Jewish women from forms of infection, to protect and preserve the nation. Say at all about their spiritual condition. If Baptism was a substitute for that, why didn’t Paul make his life so much easier by saying to all the Judaizers who were running all over everywhere demanding people to be circumcised, “Wait a minute. You guys don’t get it. Baptism replaces that.” That would have ended the argument. Then the Judaizers would have been satisfied. It never says that.

Infant Baptism is not in the Scripture, it’s not New Testament Baptism, and it is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic mark of circumcision. What verse says that? Where is it? Show me the verse. Where in the Bible does it say, by the way, Baptism is a replacement of circumcision? Where does it say that? It doesn’t say that anywhere. Again, this is a very far reching assumption. There are no cases of infant Baptism. There is no description of infant Baptism. There is no call for infant Baptism. By your logic you are telling me that it means something the Bible doesn’t say it means. How could the Bible say it means anything when the Bible doesn’t say anything about it?

You are without scriptural support and are left to some kind of inferential evidence based on supposed covenantal considerations. The only Baptism that the New Testament knows anything about is the Baptism of people who put their faith in Christ.

Paul even went so far as to say, “If you’re circumcised, grace is no more grace. You’ve abandoned Christ.” Circumcision never transfers itself into Baptism.
 
Quite funny he mentions acts Chapter 2, but only the first 2-3 words of that verse, its like reading a paragraph by reading the first 2-3 words and quoting verse out of context it won’t make any sense.

Here is the entire verse ( the portion in red is the part the user has quoted)

"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. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:38–39)
 
Chiefsinner said:
Quite funny he mentions acts Chapter 2, but only the first 2-3 words of that verse, its like reading a paragraph by reading the first 2-3 words and quoting verse out of context it won’t make any sense.

Here is the entire verse

"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. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:38–39)
Click to expand...
You must look at the context and order of the verse you quotes. The verse starts with “Repent” and then says “be baptized.” There is a very clear order hear.

As far as the second part of the verse, we can debate what it meant by the “promise is to you and to your children.”

But what debatable is that the verse gives us an chronological order…1) Repent and then 2) be baptized.
 
acts 2:41

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day

Now it does not specifically say if it was 3000 men or a combination…but I know they baptized entire households. And households INCLUDE BABIES.

There is a reason for Catechism/Religion classes at Catholic schools or CCD classes when there is no Catholic school available. Parents are the primary educator of their children when it comes to faith formation. They make promises (along with the specially chosen GodParents) to raise their children according to the Faith.

Telling someone they can’t be baptized until they “are of age” is ridiculous.

Baptism makes you a member of God’s FAMILY. It wipes away the stain of original sin.
 
Regarding your argument for circumcision is replaced by baptism here is the verse

Colossians 2:11-12 In [Christ] also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh*, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism… (emphasis mine)
Just as circumcision was the “putting off the body of the flesh”, so baptism is being “buried with Christ”, “into death” (Romans 6:4). They are signs of the same promise of the same salvation, one given to the physical race Jews, the other to the world-wide race of the elect.

Since the rite of circumcision was performed on male infants at eight days old, it makes sense to retain the age for Baptism.

Genesis 17:12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.
Note that those who are baptized are those “in your household” or those brought into the household, so by carryover this would only apply to children of believers in Baptism.

PS : everything in the new testament is hidden in the old testament ( the way the bible is written is in typology )

Example The 7 days in genesis and 7 days in the gospel of john ( chapter 1)
 
Scitor said:
Paul most certainly does not state infant baptism is equal to circumcision. That is a very very far reach.

Every Jewish baby boy was circumcised, every one of them. It was a sign that they belonged to the people called the Jews. It was a sign that they belonged to the nation Israel. It was not a sign of salvation. Right? Not a sign of salvation. What did Paul say in Romans 9? “Not all Israel is Israel.” He even said in Romans 9, “Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated.” Most Jews are under divine judgment. They were in the past, they were a rebellious and disloyal nation. And among that entire nation of circumcised people, there was a small remnant that believed.

Think about it. If you make infant Baptism the substitute sign for circumcision, does that mean then that we now have a church that is a false church, or a rebellious church, or an unbelieving church, or an apostate church but it’s still a church and somewhere in the middle there’s a remnant of true believers? You see, circumcision was only a sign that people belonged to an ethnic group, a group called Jews, a nation called Israel. It said nothing about their spiritual condition. Baptism is always tied to salvation. There’s no parallel. There’s no connection.

Also, circumcision didn’t apply to girls. Circumcision was really a gift from God to protect Jewish women from forms of infection, to protect and preserve the nation. Say at all about their spiritual condition. If Baptism was a substitute for that, why didn’t Paul make his life so much easier by saying to all the Judaizers who were running all over everywhere demanding people to be circumcised, “Wait a minute. You guys don’t get it. Baptism replaces that.” That would have ended the argument. Then the Judaizers would have been satisfied. It never says that.

Infant Baptism is not in the Scripture, it’s not New Testament Baptism, and it is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic mark of circumcision. What verse says that? Where is it? Show me the verse. Where in the Bible does it say, by the way, Baptism is a replacement of circumcision? Where does it say that? It doesn’t say that anywhere. Again, this is a very far reching assumption. There are no cases of infant Baptism. There is no description of infant Baptism. There is no call for infant Baptism. By your logic you are telling me that it means something the Bible doesn’t say it means. How could the Bible say it means anything when the Bible doesn’t say anything about it?

You are without scriptural support and are left to some kind of inferential evidence based on supposed covenantal considerations. The only Baptism that the New Testament knows anything about is the Baptism of people who put their faith in Christ.

Paul even went so far as to say, “If you’re circumcised, grace is no more grace. You’ve abandoned Christ.” Circumcision never transfers itself into Baptism.
Click to expand...
Colossians 2:11 calls baptism the circumcision of Christ. So yeah.
 
Scitor said:
Every Jewish baby boy was circumcised, every one of them. It was a sign that they belonged to the people called the Jews. It was a sign that they belonged to the nation Israel.
Click to expand...
It was their entry into the Covenant with God. What is baptism?
Scitor said:
Circumcision was really a gift from God to protect Jewish women from forms of infection, to protect and preserve the nation.
Click to expand...
Classic adding to scripture.

You have completely ignored your protestant brothers who baptize infants. Answer this first, please.

I must also caution you that an anti-Catholic agenda is a violation of forum rules.
 
Scitor said:
You must look at the context and order of the verse you quotes. The verse starts with “Repent” and then says “be baptized.” There is a very clear order hear.
Click to expand...
Yes! For those adults who have understanding. What about the mentally ill? Are they damned? Regarding children, do parents have no authority or responsibility for their children’s spiritual welfare?

You seem to be unaware of the fact that Christ gave Peter the power of binding and loosing “whatever” (Matthew 16:19). “Whatever” means just that. It is biblically clear as crystal. It means anything at all - even what is not written in your New International Version. The Church founded on Peter has held that infant baptism, under the given authority of Christ, is held bound. Your community has no such authority and I believe that is the reason for your doubt and confusion on this issue.

Do you also ignore the fact that Paul taught against circumcision only after he went to the Church for a decision? Please read and reflect on Acts 15. The scriptures were of no help to Paul on this question - only the Church, by it’s Christ-given authority, could help - and did.

That same Church has held infant baptism to be bound.
 
Why would God open his covenant with the Israelites (including children) to the Gentiles and then decide to now remove all of the children from it? It makes no sense. 🙂
 
I ask my protestant Brother If I repent and Believed Jesus Christ and have faith, and Baptize my baby, is not a Valid Baptize? so the Holy Spirit doesn’t come and Baptize my child, so the heaven open and when the Holy spirit is going to come down, and he realize is a Baby stays in heaven and my baby is not Baptize? so my question is you think that when the priest baptize a child in the name of the Father, the Son and The Holy spirit, the Holy Trinity Ignore the Priest? just want to know your toughs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top