Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[YADA]

Interesting theory, but the text remains; “Those who accepted his message were baptized” and infants could not accept his message.

As for the rest, even Paul states he’s glad that he only baptized a couple of people. You would think he wouldn’t care what they would say about him, but he says “I’m glad I didn’t baptize anyone else.” Doesn’t sound so urgent now does it?

Except the text does not state that the only hearers were adults and actually individual adults either - all making individual public declarations of belief.

Thus - the hearers could have included ‘families’ - entire households …including children - whose parents heard and accepted for their children and themselves …We know that Jesus traveled by caravan to Jerusalem as did many entire villages, families and whole households for feasts and holy days … thus you are reading into the text more limiting detail then exists - and that in a vacuum that is in opposition to the practices of the early church …

Also … entire households includes more then just children … it included others - servants and slaves …who speaks for them? … If they personally had to accept Jesus’s message to be baptized - how what this acceptance determined to be authentic and not coerced? … If it was not coereced - why are the scriptures silent on that … or is the entire household limited? …

If so why is that “limited inclusion” not expressly dealt with in the passages … why would the passage not read something like this … “and then those adults in Cornelius’ household who accepted Jesus’ teachings were baptized” … instead of the** ‘the entire household’ ** …

Abraham was instructed to circumcise all the males … relatives - adults and children. servants and slaves … he was not instructed to ask if they desired circumcision …

The head of the household speaks for the entire household …

Entire clans and nations were brought into Christianity [and after the reformation - various Christian sects] by the leaders -

Christian adults brought their children into the faith they professed via baptism - and late in Christian belief and practice - someone says … “wait - you are not interpreting this correctly” … …me thinks - you don’t interpret correctly … and my inspiration by the Holy Spirit, my masters degree in theological studies and my understanding is IMHO - more solid - and dare I say - right/correct/true then yours

 

[JerryZ]

Thanks for some references. I believe that all will sin as we are human beings who are weak and destined to sin. I do not believe a baby has sinned though. I don’t know how a baby can go to hell for all of eternity because he has somehow sinned.

And that is a typical response from some, not all the protestant sects out there.
What is your belief on “Original Sin” and I will bet where there is none, infant Baptism is also unimportant.

The Catholic Church teaches as it has always done that, we are born into original sin.
St. Paul speaks of this as well as the Church Fathers.
An infant is therefore also born into original sin and since Baptism removes all sin, both original as well as personal, the infant being Baptized has only original sin to be removed from him.
If were he/she to die for any unfortunate event we can have absolute confidence on the destination.
Which by the way was the reasoning of the Church fathers in rejecting imposing the Baptism to infants at the 8th day just as was done with circumcision.

–

 

[Cathoholic]

I am going to try to post some other things concerning Acts 2 and how it concerns the Infant Baptism issue soon. And what we’d expect to see in Acts 2 if there was such a thing as an Anabaptist situation in Scripture (1500 years before the Anabaptist concept was invented).

I will base this on my personal observations and experiences within the Anabaptist framework.

Also thanks for the kind words in post 390 FathersKnowBest and Miriam1947 in post 396.

 

[Vico]

…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. … There is no record of infant baptism from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. Please show me one example of infant baptism. …

St. Polycarp (69-155)
Pliny (61-113)
St. Justin Martyr (105-165)
St. Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202)
St. Hippolytus (170-235)“Infant baptism was not controversial in the Church during the first two centuries after Christ. St. Polycarp described himself as having been in devoted service to Christ for 86 years in a manner that would clearly indicate a childhood baptism. Pliny describes with amazement that children belong to the Christian cult in just the same way as do the adults. St. Justin Martyr tells of the “many men and women who have been disciples of Christ from childhood.” St. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote about “all who are born again in God, the infants, and the small children . . . and the mature.” St. Hippolytus insisted that “first you should baptize the little ones . . . but for those who cannot speak, their parents should speak or another who belongs to their family.”” - *by Fr. John Hainsworth (*Antiochian Archdiocese) antiochian.org/content/infant-baptism-what-church-believes

 

[YADA]

St. Polycarp (69-155)
Pliny (61-113)
St. Justin Martyr (105-165)
St. Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202)
St. Hippolytus (170-235)“Infant baptism was not controversial in the Church during the first two centuries after Christ. St. Polycarp described himself as having been in devoted service to Christ for 86 years in a manner that would clearly indicate a childhood baptism. Pliny describes with amazement that children belong to the Christian cult in just the same way as do the adults. St. Justin Martyr tells of the “many men and women who have been disciples of Christ from childhood.” St. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote about “all who are born again in God, the infants, and the small children . . . and the mature.” St. Hippolytus insisted that “first you should baptize the little ones . . . but for those who cannot speak, their parents should speak or another who belongs to their family.”” - *by Fr. John Hainsworth (*Antiochian Archdiocese) antiochian.org/content/infant-baptism-what-church-believes

Very nice

 

[Jonathan_1995]

2 Samuel 12:18 states that the child was sick for seven days, meaning he was alive for at least 8, and would have been circumcised.

Which translation do you use? KJV, NRSVCE, DRA and ESV state that the child DIED on the seventh day.

“And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. . . .” (2 Samuel 12:18)

David’s child died on the 7th day. So if he wasn’t circumcised, then it’s unlikely that the child was saved, since circumcision is a token of covenant between man and God.

I don’t know if there were exceptions where infants were allowed to be circumcised earlier, like in this case when the infant was sick and dying.

However, it’s not a good argument for the salvation of babies, since there’s an equivalent of the OT circumcision in the NT (Col. 2:11-13).

 

[JamesTheJust]

Which translation do you use? KJV, NRSVCE, DRA and ESV state that the child DIED on the seventh day.

“And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. . . .” (2 Samuel 12:18)

David’s child died on the 7th day. So if he wasn’t circumcised, then it’s unlikely that the child was saved, since circumcision is a token of covenant between man and God.

I don’t know if there were exceptions where infants were allowed to be circumcised earlier, like in this case when the infant was sick and dying.

However, it’s not a good argument for the salvation of babies, since there’s an equivalent of the OT circumcision in the NT (Col. 2:11-13).

The seventh day that the baby was sick, not of his entire life.

 

[Jonathan_1995]

The seventh day that the baby was sick, not of his entire life.

How do you know? There’s not much detail? Isn’t that a matter of interpretation?

 

[JamesTheJust]

How do you know? There’s not much detail? Isn’t that a matter of interpretation?

A quick reading of 2 Samuel 12 (the context) will show that the baby had already been born (thus alive for at least a day) when it was cursed. 7+1=8.

 

[Jonathan_1995]

A quick reading of 2 Samuel 12 (the context) will show that the baby had already been born (thus alive for at least a day) when it was cursed. 7+1=8.

Yes, you’re right.

Yes, but his was better.

 

[ckutac]

You do not have verses showing infant baptism or suggesting infant baptism. I clearly showed without doubt that each instance household is used it was followed by stating the household first believed.
.

You are lying, about proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. When scripture absolutely states that the jailer believing was enough to get his whole family saved:
Acts 16:29-33
And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.

Look at the bolded part, again, Paul and Silas tell him that by him believing, him and his entire household would be saved. Notice they are still at the prison, his family was not anywhere around at the time. But Paul and Silas said NOTHING about the rest of the family then needing to believe. Quite the opposite, they specifically tell him that JUST by him believing him AND his entire household will be saved. And nowhere between the jailer believing in Jesus and the jailer and his household being baptized, do we here ANYTHING about the rest of the household having to say say that they believe.

If that in itself is not enough look at Matthew 19:14:
“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

I don’t know about you, but I certainly do think that keeping the Holy Spirit from the children would qualify and hindering them. And the only way biblically to receive the Holy Spirit is to be baptized.

And finally we have Colossians 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

And once again circumcision was done on the 8th day.

This is directly straight from the bible.

Then you have early church fathers like Origen and St. Augustine who specifically write that:
Origen (154-253) - “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants”
St. Augustine (354-420) - says of infant baptism: “This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end.”

Notice that these where all written BEFORE your imaginary date of 414. And all specifically say that they got infant baptism from the disciples. Where is your writings that these guys are wrong? Oh, I know, you have to go back another 1200 years to find anyone who says anything against infant baptism.

You TRY and disprove infant baptism, by ONLY looking at New Testament, but having ZERO understanding that NOTHING was added in the new covenant, everything is only a more true and perfect fulfillment of the old covenant.

 

[dronald]

You are lying, about proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. When scripture absolutely states that the jailer believing was enough to get his whole family saved:
Acts 16:29-33
And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.

Look at the bolded part, again, Paul and Silas tell him that by him believing, him and his entire household would be saved. Notice they are still at the prison, his family was not anywhere around at the time. But Paul and Silas said NOTHING about the rest of the family then needing to believe. Quite the opposite, they specifically tell him that JUST by him believing him AND his entire household will be saved. And nowhere between the jailer believing in Jesus and the jailer and his household being baptized, do we here ANYTHING about the rest of the household having to say say that they believe.

If that in itself is not enough look at Matthew 19:14:
“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

I don’t know about you, but I certainly do think that keeping the Holy Spirit from the children would qualify and hindering them. And the only way biblically to receive the Holy Spirit is to be baptized.

And finally we have Colossians 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

And once again circumcision was done on the 8th day.

This is directly straight from the bible.

Then you have early church fathers like Origen and St. Augustine who specifically write that:
Origen (154-253) - “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants”
St. Augustine (354-420) - says of infant baptism: “This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end.”

Notice that these where all written BEFORE your imaginary date of 414. And all specifically say that they got infant baptism from the disciples. Where is your writings that these guys are wrong? Oh, I know, you have to go back another 1200 years to find anyone who says anything against infant baptism.

You TRY and disprove infant baptism, by ONLY looking at New Testament, but having ZERO understanding that NOTHING was added in the new covenant, everything is only a more true and perfect fulfillment of the old covenant.

I’m not going to keep debating this, because it’s exhausting. But you’re wrong saying only the Baptized received the Holy Spirit in the NT. There are a few accounts of the Holy Spirit being given before baptism. Just thought I would point that out.

 

[pablope]

I’m not going to keep debating this, because it’s exhausting. But you’re wrong saying only the Baptized received the Holy Spirit in the NT. There are a few accounts of the Holy Spirit being given before baptism. Just thought I would point that out.

But the Holy Spirit convicted them to be baptized or to get baptized…as I recall.

 

[ckutac]

The moment one accepts Christ as their Lord and Savior, it is in that moment they are “born again.”

Who to believe on when you are Born Again? Jesus or the Southern Baptist Church?

Because we absolutely positively beyond any argument have directions on how you are Born again according to Jesus:
John 3:1-6
Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode′mus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicode′mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

See the Bold, being Born again according to Jesus, is being born of the water and the spirit. Lets see, where did we JUST see water and spirit listed in John? Oh yeah, John 1:29-34:
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.’ I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

Notice, Water and Spirit is baptism…

According to the Southern Baptism Church Jesus should have told Nicode′mus: “Truely Truely I say to you, accept me as your Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.”. But he says NOTHING like that, he says: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

But, the Southern Baptist Church says that baptism is only an outward symbol of an inward acceptance of Christ. If it was just some outward symbol, then why would Jesus say you cannot enter the kingdom of God without it?

Here is a hint, the Southern Baptist Church has ZERO idea what they are talking about.

 

[JonNC]

=ckutac;11649512]You are lying, about proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. When scripture absolutely states that the jailer believing was enough to get his whole family saved:
Acts 16:29-33

As a Lutheran, I side with Catholicism on the issue of infant Baptism. As a result, I certainly think Scitor is completely wrong, but I do not think he is lying! He truly believes what he says, and therefore there is no intent to deceive, which is what is required for it to be a lie.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As a Lutheran, I side with Catholicism on the issue of infant Baptism. As a result, I certainly think Scitor is completely wrong, but I do not think he is lying! He truly believes what he says, and therefore there is no intent to deceive, which is what is required for it to be a lie.

Jon

I agree with you, Jon.

If I’m not mistaken - 2 of the most prominent SS defenders (Sproul Sr (For) and MacArthur(Against)) went head to head on the infant baptism issue. They reached an impasse because none of them could prove their position on Scripture Alone. An incredible big irony, if you ask me . Who would have tought? Christ did indeed knows what He is doing by leaving us a teaching authority and not a handbook.

 

[JonNC]

I agree with you, Jon.

If I’m not mistaken - 2 of the most prominent SS defenders (Sproul Sr (For) and MacArthur(Against)) went head to head on the infant baptism issue. They reached an impasse because none of them could prove their position on Scripture Alone. An incredible big irony, if you ask me . Who would have tought? Christ did indeed knows what He is doing by leaving us a teaching authority and not a handbook.

Well, Jose, I think scripture is pretty clear on the issue of infant Baptism, as this thread has demonstrated. But on your main point, I think you are right, that there is a reason for the teaching authority of the Church. One of the things that seems to separate Lutherans from protestants is our willingness to, our practice of conferring with the history and Tradition of the Church, to recognize the guidance we receive from the instruction of the Church Fathers, the early councils, etc., all the while holding that scripture is the final norm.

Scitor doesn’t seem to see it, sadly, but I don’t think he is lying, as ckutac appears to think (unless I misunderstood).

Jon

 

[Scitor]

:newidea:

Acts 2:40-41
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

See bolded…THOSE WHO ACCEPTED HIS MESSAGE WERE BAPTIZED. Infants are unable to accept the message. Again, every verse in the NT related to baptism follows the order of believe first and baptized second.

If three thousand people accepted Peter’s message and were baptized in a single day, that means that each Apostle would have had to baptize 250 people. Since Peter began preaching around 9:00am, even if they had 12 hours of daylight, they would have baptized 20 people an hour - one every three minutes.

Now, you can argue that each Apostle had a couple of minutes to question each person carefully to make sure that he or she fully understood and believed the gospel message AS BAPTISTS INSIST or you can assume that when the crowd queued up, the Apostles simply starting dunking everyone who wanted to receive the sacrament.

All the apostles needed to ask was “Do you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior.” If the person said yes, then they were able to be baptized. As stated below, are you saying God is unable to instantaneously touch a persons or thousands of peoples heart. One does not have to fully understand the message to accept Christ as their savior.

Personally, I don’t think there was time for extensive catechesis and for careful examination of every believer. The numbers alone suggest that baptism was considered so important, that the Apostles baptized first and asked questions later.

If that is the case, then the argument against infant baptism is dead because while it can be argued that the people believed first and then got baptized, the apostles would not have time to VERIFY that faith; they baptized anyone presented to them for baptism regardless of the accuracy and depth of their faith. Thus, infants could be baptized with the same efficacy as an adult with a false understanding of the gospel.

Please tell me…does the Catholic Church VERIFY every Catholics faith. The church may document the process, but the reality is there is no way for any church to VERIFY ones faith. This is between the person and God. By stating that there needs to be extensive catechesis and careful examination of ones faith is to place salvation in the hands of the church and out of the hands of God. Plus, you are diluting the power of Christ when he touches/converts one heart. By your argument we should throw out the bulk of the NT. Was it not Saul who Christ touched on the road to Damascus. I don’t remember Paul going through a verification process by the apostles.

Thoughts?

 

[dronald]

But the Holy Spirit convicted them to be baptized or to get baptized…as I recall.

No one is arguing that Christians shouldn’t be baptized, we all must be. I’m just pointing out that what was said was untrue.

 

[Bots]

See bolded…THOSE WHO ACCEPTED HIS MESSAGE WERE BAPTIZED. Infants are unable to accept the message. Again, every verse in the NT related to baptism follows the order of believe first and baptized second.

If I were to say, “Bald people wear hats” it would not mean that people with hair do not. So, saying those who accepted his message were baptized does not mean anything about any other group. All that sentence is communicating is that it was the beginning step for their faith.