Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[YADA]

Like many others, your understanding of this verse is flawed as it is not stating that baptism is required for salvation. There are many problems with this interpretation.

Scitor - your interpretation and understanding is what is flawed … Again - you offer nothing but your opinion and your biblical interpretation … that is where Protestantism shows all of its flaws - everyone gets to decide for themselves - and everyone gets to be their own Pope/Magisterium … Pope Scitor is here to tell us where the Church and 2000 years of Christian belief and practice is wrong.

But in truth - Jesus is not the author of confusion nor inconsistency -

Please stop changing the topic and offering your opinion and answer the questions posed to you … you started this post with false statements - one of which was that the Early Church did not practice infant baptism until a certain date … many posts illustrated that you were in error and you have not once acknowledged those posts

Also Please answer Randy from his post copied here:

Scitor-

I appreciate your continued participation in this thread, and I realize that you have more posts directed at you than you can possibly answer. However, I think a few key points do need some response from you.

Post 116 - I asked whether the Church received REAL authority from Jesus and whether the Church can determine the validity of infant baptism.

Post 120 - I quoted many Early Christians who discussed not whether to baptized infants but when to baptize them, and I asked what this tells us about the practice of the earliest believers.

Post 146 - I laid out a very simple case for infant baptism in bullet form, and I asked you to interact with those points.

Post 160 - I presented the scriptures for each of the seven sacraments as you requested, and I haven’t seen any response from you.

I’m happy to continue discussions with you as long as you are actually interacting with the material provided in response to your questions.

Is this something you are interested in?

 

[JonNC]

=Chiefsinner;11414220]Those verses don’t have the words faith and alone in them unless you are following Luther’s version who added the words “alone”

Luther didn’t “add” alone anywhere, but that said, alone doesn’t appear in those anyway.
And if he’s reading an English language Bible, alone doesn’t appear in Romans 3:28.

Jon

 

[JamesTheJust]

Luther didn’t “add” alone anywhere, but that said, alone doesn’t appear in those anyway.
And if he’s reading an English language Bible, alone doesn’t appear in Romans 3:28.

Jon

I’ve always heard that Luther added alone to Romans 3:28, and when asked about it, he said:
You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

 

[JonNC]

=Scitor;11413989]Like many others, your understanding of this verse is flawed as it is not stating that baptism is required for salvation. There are many problems with this interpretation. First, Jesus elsewhere said that He came “to seek and to save the lost” (Lk 19:10). Since the NT never says Jesus baptized anyone, it seems obvious that baptism is not necessary for salvation, else he himself would have performed baptism.

And how does He come to seek the lost? Matthew 28:
** Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” **

To make disciples of all nations, Christ tells His disciples to 1st, baptize, then 2nd, to teach them. Obviously, coupled with what St. Paul says, Baptism is necessary. Whether or not Christ baptized anyone we don’t know. We do know that He commanded that Baptism be done, and in Matthew 28, He says Baptism first.

Second, rather than baptizing, Jesus went around teaching everyone who He as and telling them that it was necessary to believe in Him. In His own words,“For God so loved the world He gave His One and Only Son, so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.” (Jn 3:16).

He commanded His disciples to Baptize “all nations”.

Furthermore, He made it clear that condemnation is based not on failure to baptize, but on failure to believe in Him (Jn 3:18).

Which clearly indicates that even the regenerate have the free will to reject grace.

Finally, baptism is a religious work performed by human hands. If baptism is a requirement for justification before God, it would conflict with the biblical teaching that salvation comes by faith alone (Gl 2:16 and Eph 2:8-9)

Baptism is a work of the Living God. And, as a means of grace, it is not in conflict with the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone.

Jon

 

[bmonk]

People like the guy who started this thread does not make sense. I have asked him several times, people who have down syndrome or some sort of mental problem, most will never be able to understand, they will never be able to believe in God, what about them do they forgo baptism?

Actually, I know plenty of people with Down Syndrome, as well as other developmental disabilities. Most of them understand, or can understand, well enough to receive baptism, Eucharist, and other sacraments.

 

[bmonk]

Using this same logic…grey area…no scriptural basis, I believe that infants are under God’s grace until the age of accountability. I.e. Until they are old enough to understand what it means to accept Christ as their Savior.

A few on this board have said, by my logic infants go to hell because they cannot believe and thus are not able to be baptized.

My answer is above. Is there exact scripture that says this, no. Is there scripture that we can infer that infants are under the Grace of God…yes.

But that is your own interpretation. We, as the Church that Jesus taught, chose, and founded, have the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide us to all truth. We have the traditions from the Apostles that indicate what we are doing is what they did, that what we believe is what they believed. What is your authority?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Like many others, your understanding of this verse is flawed as it is not stating that baptism is required for salvation.

How timely…Jimmy Akin posted this today:

Is Baptism Really Necessary?
Jimmy Akin
November 19, 2013
catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/is-baptism-really-necessary

According to 1 Peter 3:21:

“Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

In keeping with this language, the Nicene Creed states:

“I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms:

“The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [Jn 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mk 16:16]” (CCC 1257).

The necessity of baptism for salvation is broadly recognized among Christians, including non-Catholic ones. For example, Martin Luther wrote:

“Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted” (Large Catechism 4:6).

But God has not made baptism necessary in an absolute sense, so that anyone who fails to receive it is lost. Down through history Christians have recognized that there are exceptions, and that it is possible to be saved through “baptism of blood” (martyrdom for Christ) or “baptism of desire” (a desire for baptism that has not yet been received).

Even those who do not understand the importance of baptism can be said to have an unconscious desire for it if they would be willing to do what God wants them to do for their salvation. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

“Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible; see CCC 1260–61, 1283).

Both the necessity of baptism and the exceptional cases have been recognized all the way down through Church history.

For example, it’s easy to show from passages from the Church Fathers illustrate that Christians in the first ages recognized the ordinary necessity of water baptism as well as the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Necessity of Water Baptism Proved from Scripture

The New Testament writers indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation in the following verses of scripture.

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Note that two things are necessary: 1) belief and 2) baptism.

Acts 2:37-39
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Note that two things are necessary: 1) repentance and 2) baptism.

Acts 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Note that baptism – not faith – is prescribed for the cleansing of sins.

Titus 3:4-7
4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Note that the author states that “He saved us through the washing of rebirth” – an obvious reference to baptism.

1 Peter 3:20-21
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

“Baptism…now saves you”.

+++

But we’re just repeating ourselves, aren’t we?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Acts 8
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. 36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

If baptism is purely symbolic, why didn’t the Eunuch wait until he got home to be baptized? I mean, he was already saved by faith alone, right? So why the rush? Wouldn’t it have been better for him to go back to Ethiopia, gather all of his friends, and then give his witness to them all before stepping into the water as a sign of his salvation?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Randy, the problem is one of underlying assumptions. Our friend believes the Bible says that salvation is by faith alone (something it actually never says) and therefore anything that we are required to do, save believing, has nothing to do with salvation. Therefore, baptism, which is a work, has nothing to do with salvation even though the Bible clearly says it does.

There are many things that have to be addressed. First the Bible never says that salvation is by faith alone. That is because we are saved by different things in different ways. Our faith, strictly speaking, does not merit our salvation. This is why St. Paul clarifies that faith is “not of yourselves… it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.” Jesus also refers to believing as a work:

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (John 6:28-29)

So salvation is by faith only in a secondary way. In the most primary respect, it is freely given without any respect of man’s own merits. Once it is realized that faith and works are not opposite categories, we can dispense with the objection that X is not necessary for salvation because salvation is by faith alone. Then we can begin to understand why the Bible says obedience is necessary for salvation, and read the Bible according to what it actually says and not what we think it ought to say.

 

[SPH1]

Our SBC friend mentions that Christ never baptised. However, to my understanding, Christian baptism for the forgiveness of sins and salvation only came into being after Christ’s death and resurrection. Prior to that there was the baptism of John, which was a baptism of repentence and not the same as the later Christian baptism.

It is also apparent that the SBC has a completely different mind-set with regard to baptism and sacraments in general. To them, baptism really is only a work where…at best…God is merely a passive observer. They do not see God on the other end actively involved in the sacrament performing the sacrament and conveying grace through the sacrament. In effect, they take God out of the sacrament. IMO, the SBC theory completely negates the living and continuing priesthood of Christ.

And as I think further on the matter, for all of their talk of having a “personal relation with Christ”, I think that they are not that close with Christ at all. It strikes me as if the SBC is more like a soldier or someone on extended deployment from their family, thinking of their family…but far apart.

Finally, since the SBC is adamant that baptism is not even necessary for salvation, I wonder why they focus so much on the WORK aspect of age and mode.

Question for our SBC friend: say someone “makes their decision for Christ” but then decides that baptism isn’t necessary and just simply refuses baptism. Can that person be saved?

 

[Chiefsinner]

Scitor-

I appreciate your continued participation in this thread, and I realize that you have more posts directed at you than you can possibly answer. However, I think a few key points do need some response from you.

Post 116 - I asked whether the Church received REAL authority from Jesus and whether the Church can determine the validity of infant baptism.

Post 120 - I quoted many Early Christians who discussed not whether to baptized infants but when to baptize them, and I asked what this tells us about the practice of the earliest believers.

Post 146 - I laid out a very simple case for infant baptism in bullet form, and I asked you to interact with those points.

Post 160 - I presented the scriptures for each of the seven sacraments as you requested, and I haven’t seen any response from you.

I’m happy to continue discussions with you as long as you are actually interacting with the material provided in response to your questions.

Is this something you are interested in?

Yes these points cover everything you need I’ve added the links again since it would be difficult to browse back and forth =>

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396338&postcount=116

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396423&postcount=120

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11403565&postcount=146

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11409846&postcount=160

 

[Cathoholic]

Using Common Sense Concerning What Would Noah Say (WWNS)

I think if we know the Bible, we just know in our hearts that infant Baptism is appropriate.

WHY?

Think Noah’s Ark applied to the CONCEPT of Infant Baptism and I think it will make sense.

Why Noah’s Ark in the context of Baptism?

Because the Bible makes that comparison (more on this shortly).

Although no verse explicitly states “do” or “don’t” baptize infants except Acts (the promise is for “your children” too), you don’t even need a verse explicitly saying, “baptize infants”!

We know this truth was put onto our very hearts. We have to deny truth placed in our heart by God almighty to withhold the baptizing of our babies and follow mere traditions of men! Take the following scenario for example:

Imagine for a minute, you were the proverbial “mouse in the corner” watching Noah call the people to repentance and urging them to come aboard the Ark as he likely did. This was in the Old Covenant, just before the great flood.

Just as Noah is about to close the door to the Ark (and the rains are about to begin) a family cries out to Noah . . .

. . . . (The father of the family says) “Just a second Noah! Don’t close that Ark door! Me and my family have decided to take you up on this Ark proposition. We have decided to believe your prophecy concerning this world-wide destruction regarding this upcoming flood.”

Pretend Noah says something like . . . “That is just great! Praise God! Come on aboard.”

Now this man comes aboard the Ark with Noah standing there watching him and smiling.

So far so good. Now his 18-year-old son comes aboard. Still no problem.

Now his 15-year-old daughter comes on board. Again A-OK.

Now the mans’ lagging wife is coming aboard the Ark while she is carrying their six month old son and had by the hand, their two year old daughter.

Noah’s facial expression changes from relief to one of consternation and distress. Noah is upset.

(“Uh Oh! What’s the matter Noah?”)

All of a sudden Noah looks troubled and says something like:

“This six month old baby son of yours, and your two year old daughter, have got to stay and drown!"

"They have to make a personal choice for Yahweh themselves after a spirit-filled emotional experience, but only after they are to the age of accountability.”

The dad states:

“But Noah, they need God’s saving grace, God’s intervention, NOW!"

The dad goes on to state:

“Noah! Don’t I have God-given authority over my family? As for me and my family, cannot I speak on my children’s behalf?!”

Noah then sternly replies . . .

. . . . “They can’t have the saving Ark, until they can accept Yahweh into their hearts and since they can’t do that, NO ARK for them!”

Noah would NEVER have said that!

And everyone (Anabaptists included) reading this knows that! It’s on our hearts isn’t it? Noah would NEVER react like that! Noah would have welcomed them ALL into the saving Ark. We ALL know this.

Well just a second. WHY make the corresponding analogy of . . .

. . . the saving aspects of the Ark delivering people from the waters of death, with . . .
. . . the saving aspects of Baptism delivering people from our sinfulness and death?

Because we hear St. Peter in 1st Peter 3:18-21 use that same type of an analogy!
Because we hear the Holy Spirit in 1st Peter 3:18-21 use that same type of an analogy!
Because the Holy Spirit, through St. Peter, tells us that Baptism which now saves us, corresponds to the situation encountered with Noah’s Ark!

1st PETER 3:18-21 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The INSPIRED St. Peter here seems to think that what the Ark is to the flood IS a reasonable corresponding analogy to what the baptism of an individual is compared to the fall (began by Adam and Eve) and propagated by us!

The INSPIRED St. Peter here seems to also think “Baptism . . . now saves you” (1st Peter 3:21).

You will read a multitude of Anabaptist flip-flopping and parsing about what 1st Peter 3:21 “clearly really means.”

But why not just believe what it says?

“Baptism . . . now saves you”.

Baptism in the New Covenant corresponds to Noah’s Ark in the Old Covenant times.

St. Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says so.

Shouldn’t WE think these situations correspond too?

JOSHUA 25:15b . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

(Primary meaning is God and His House (as this is prophecy). Secondary meaning though is Joshua and his family. Notice Joshua speaks on behalf of his family.)

 

[Porknpie]

John 3:22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing. He spent time with them baptizing…sounds to me that Jesus was baptizing too?

 

[Porknpie]

Scitor -

I haven’t heard your response to the following:

a) All Households were baptized.

b) Infants are members of a Household.

c) Infants therefore were baptized.

Are you arguing that infants are not members of a household for C to be false?

If they are not members of a household, what are they and what is your source for this information?

The Church Fathers write that infants were baptized and they only argue whether like circumcision they should be baptized on day 8 or the day of birth or the second day of life. None of them write that baptism should occur at the age of reason. In fact, they write that baptizing infants comes from the teachings of the apostles, who of course, were taught by Christ himself.

PnP

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

He spent time with them baptizing…sounds to me that Jesus was baptizing too?

“Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples…”
-John 4:2

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Acts 8
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. 36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

If baptism is purely symbolic, why didn’t the Eunuch wait until he got home to be baptized? I mean, he was already saved by faith alone, right? So why the rush? Wouldn’t it have been better for him to go back to Ethiopia, gather all of his friends, and then give his witness to them all before stepping into the water as a sign of his salvation?

Or, OTOH, why didn’t Philip ask him “Do you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior” instead of Baptizing him?

It would seem that based on the unwritten conversation in the carriage, the Eunuch came to the conclusion that Baptism was necessary (obviously based on what Philip was telling him.) Why didn’t Philip give him a lecture about the purely symbolic, non effectual nature of baptism instead? hmmmm.

Instead the WHOLE point of the story seems to be about Philip baptizing the Eunuch. Because after the baptism, Philip disappears.

 

[ahs]

Using Common Sense Concerning What Would Noah Say (WWNS)

I think if we know the Bible, we just know in our hearts that infant Baptism is appropriate.

WHY?

Think Noah’s Ark applied to the CONCEPT of Infant Baptism and I think it will make sense.

Why Noah’s Ark in the context of Baptism?

Because the Bible makes that comparison (more on this shortly).

Although no verse explicitly states “do” or “don’t” baptize infants except Acts (the promise is for “your children” too), you don’t even need a verse explicitly saying, “baptize infants”!

We know this truth was put onto our very hearts. We have to deny truth placed in our heart by God almighty to withhold the baptizing of our babies and follow mere traditions of men! Take the following scenario for example:

Imagine for a minute, you were the proverbial “mouse in the corner” watching Noah call the people to repentance and urging them to come aboard the Ark as he likely did. This was in the Old Covenant, just before the great flood.

Just as Noah is about to close the door to the Ark (and the rains are about to begin) a family cries out to Noah . . .

. . . . (The father of the family says) “Just a second Noah! Don’t close that Ark door! Me and my family have decided to take you up on this Ark proposition. We have decided to believe your prophecy concerning this world-wide destruction regarding this upcoming flood.”

Pretend Noah says something like . . . “That is just great! Praise God! Come on aboard.”

Now this man comes aboard the Ark with Noah standing there watching him and smiling.

So far so good. Now his 18-year-old son comes aboard. Still no problem.

Now his 15-year-old daughter comes on board. Again A-OK.

Now the mans’ lagging wife is coming aboard the Ark while she is carrying their six month old son and had by the hand, their two year old daughter.

Noah’s facial expression changes from relief to one of consternation and distress. Noah is upset.

(“Uh Oh! What’s the matter Noah?”)

All of a sudden Noah looks troubled and says something like:

The dad states:

“But Noah, they need God’s saving grace, God’s intervention, NOW!"

The dad goes on to state:

“Noah! Don’t I have God-given authority over my family? As for me and my family, cannot I speak on my children’s behalf?!”

Noah then sternly replies . . .

Noah would NEVER have said that!

And everyone (Anabaptists included) reading this knows that! It’s on our hearts isn’t it? Noah would NEVER react like that! Noah would have welcomed them ALL into the saving Ark. We ALL know this.

Well just a second. WHY make the corresponding analogy of . . .

. . . the saving aspects of the Ark delivering people from the waters of death, with . . .
. . . the saving aspects of Baptism delivering people from our sinfulness and death?

Because we hear St. Peter in 1st Peter 3:18-21 use that same type of an analogy!
Because we hear the Holy Spirit in 1st Peter 3:18-21 use that same type of an analogy!
Because the Holy Spirit, through St. Peter, tells us that Baptism which now saves us, corresponds to the situation encountered with Noah’s Ark!

1st PETER 3:18-21 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The INSPIRED St. Peter here seems to think that what the Ark is to the flood IS a reasonable corresponding analogy to what the baptism of an individual is compared to the fall (began by Adam and Eve) and propagated by us!

The INSPIRED St. Peter here seems to also think “Baptism . . . now saves you” (1st Peter 3:21).

You will read a multitude of Anabaptist flip-flopping and parsing about what 1st Peter 3:21 “clearly really means.”

But why not just believe what it says?

Baptism in the New Covenant corresponds to Noah’s Ark in the Old Covenant times.

St. Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says so.

Shouldn’t WE think these situations correspond too?

JOSHUA 25:15b . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

(Primary meaning is God and His House (as this is prophecy). Secondary meaning though is Joshua and his family. Notice Joshua speaks on behalf of his family.)

I just had to quote this to post it again. This is awesome!

 

[InquestofaWoman]

Using Common Sense Concerning What Would Noah Say (WWNS)

Growing up, my church decried infant baptism, along with Anabaptists and some other Protestant denominations. Christ’s baptism is the argument primarily used: that because Jesus was baptized as an adult, so baptism must remain a spiritual rite of adulthood, whereby people, at the age of maturity, consciously decide to follow Christ. This is a reasonable argument, and for churches who prefer to follow its principles, I see no problem.

I do, however, take issue with levelling criticism and condemnation at the other side.

If one is going to use Christ’s baptism as a point against infant baptism, then it appears we ought not to undergo the process until we are 33 years of age; yet this is not the case, certainly not within the church of my youth. True, it has been emphasized that the time of Christ’s baptism coincides with the beginning of His ministry and therefore has nothing to do with us; but this argument can be made for spiritual maturity as well. The time of youth tends to be the most foolish. The majority of us are far better grounded at 30 than we are at 20, spiritually and otherwise. We certainly are not nearly so sensible within our formative years, even less so below then; nevertheless, baptism is regularly performed on children. Indeed, I have seen children as young as 6 placed into the baptismal pool. I was baptized at 9. What did we know at that age, except what our parents told us? What was the value of our profession of faith? For me, there was none. I did not know at all what I was doing. I hopped into the pool in the hope that God would be nice to me; I did not understand the weighty decision I made. Yet those who baptized me would dare to sneer at infant baptism, as though a child my age were old enough to attain the mature awareness of God and submission to Him. It is a ridiculous assumption, and incontrovertibly a contradiction; it does not make sense.

Then, of course, the method of baptism is a point of contention, too. All who spurn infant baptism point at sprinkling as scripturally improper. But then, among these churches, some perform kneeling baptisms wherein a small cup of water is poured over the head; others insist on full immersion and declare it as the only valid mode; others argue that one must be dipped while standing upright, while opponents contend for lowering backwards; still others assert that only the head need be fully deluged, and instruct candidates to hang over fountains. All such churches vie with one another for the designation of accuracy. What to believe? And what does Jesus truly think of all this? One wonders.

Though brought up differently, I am not against infant baptism. I understand the intention. The Bible says, in Romans 3:23, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Paul was referring to both Jews and Gentiles at this time, but the principle remains for us. We are all stained. Every last one. Notice the text does not indicate that adults only have sinned and fall short, but all. A child born into this world inherits the evil capacity, which surely can be seen in naughty behaviour early on; babies and toddlers are not the cherubs we would have them be. Because they are young and yet unlearned, therefore incapable of understanding their actions except through instruction, does not mean they do not require grace, and this is what infant baptism symbolically provides. It ushers the infant into the new covenant with God, in much the same principle way male circumcision marked the Israelites as God’s chosen people, in the days before Christ (Genesis 17:10-14).

We now know, from the St. Paul, that circumcision is no longer required, for we are no longer subject to the Mosaic laws (Galatians 5:1-7). We have access to divine grace, offered through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and subsequent rendering of salvation to all who believe. As believers, we are similarly accepted as Christ’s very own. When an infant is baptized, it does not imply his public acceptance of this grace (for that would be impossible), but the parents’ rightful recognition that the child, born into sin as they once were, is in sore need of it, hourly and daily. When the child comes of age–in the Catholic context, between 12 and 14 years usually–that child undergoes a process of study to understand the significance of his or her baptism, and what it means, as one of accountable age, to submit publicly and openly to God and the Church; following that process of examination, he or she is then confirmed. This is not a case of once saved always saved, wherein a baby is sprinkled and left to live whatever life he chooses without consequence; there is no canonical removal of personal accountability from the child. Infant baptism does not decide for the child, even when the child is, at last, able to decide himself; rather it is a presentation of the helpless infant, to Christ and His redemptive power, that God will bless and preserve the child until *he *can decide for himself. There remains, here, a full profession of faith.

Continued in ensuing post!

 

[InquestofaWoman]

Using Common Sense Concerning What Would Noah Say (WWNS)

I stand firmly with the Catholic Church position on this issue; but this does not mean I deem all other baptisms invalid. To the contrary, my own baptism, however untimely done, was fully accepted. I was not required to undergo rebaptism, as I surely would have for some other denominations; and this is the attitude I take, insomuch as the baptism incorporates the Trinitarian formula (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the acknowledgement of God three in One), which just about every Christian (save a tiny few) correctly employs. I proclaim my faith in Christ with gladness and wholly believe in one such baptism for the remission of sins, in much the same way I know Christ need only offer Himself once for my salvation; not over and over again. Perhaps, had Moses understood this in the wilderness, when fetching water from the rock for God’s people, he would not have struck the rock twice…which clearly was wrong, literally and symbolically.

Indeed, we are free to disagree with one another as Christians. However, in this area, as Cathoholic intimates by his thoughtful post, let us be mindful to consider carefully, prayerfully, and respectfully; not condemn.