Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[ckutac]

So, it’s likely something similar happened in this household even though we’re given absolutely no reason to believe so?

And we are given absolutely no reason to believe that it didn’t happen now are we?

And honest question, would you agree that a 2 year old is not yet at “the age of reason”? Would you also agree that 2 year olds ABSOLUTELY positively BEYOND ANY reasonable doubt are able to rejoice?

They may have no idea what they are rejoicing about, but make no mistake about it, if everyone else in a house with a 2 year old gets excited, the two year old will be excited as well. And they absolutely can get excited even if no one else in the house if, if they get what they want.

Where does it even hint in the bible that everyone in the multiple “households” in the bible where at the “age of reason”? Keep in mind, that even baptizing a 2 or 3 year old, proves the Catholic point of view, that anyone can be baptized. They do not have to reach the “age of reason”.

 

[ckutac]

Actually, the uncertainty among Catholics is what worries us so much. That’s a major drive in the belief that infants do not need Baptism in order to attain Salvation. We believe that an infant would not be condemned nor go to limbo but rather go to where Christ claimed belongs to such as them. Catholics say they’re not quite certain.

If they do not follow the teaching of the Church, they are AT MOST Catholic in name only. Real Catholics do not have the authority to believe anything that is against the teaching of the Church. If they do, they would not be following the Holy See.

 

[ckutac]

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.

I am saying that the NORMAL way, to receive the Holy Spirit, is threw Baptism.

Jesus is all powerful and can do ANYTHING that he wants, he is God. But, there is without a doubt a NORMAL pattern that he laid out for people to follow. First you are baptized, THEN you receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

So, it’s likely something similar happened in this household even though we’re given absolutely no reason to believe so?

We are also told that the Holy Spirit filled some before baptism too. What’s your point? If the Bible doesn’t say it, it didn’t happen?

Our point is the doctrine, not individual cases.

There is a unified doctrine of baptism throughout the NT. It is not EXPLICITLY defined for EVERY conceivable contingency. All a thoughtful Christian need do is examine what was done in the early Church by referring to the most ancient Church Fathers. It is plain THEN, that infant baptism was a normal Apostolic tradition.

 

[dronald]

I dare you to even attempt to find a single quote for an early Church Father disagreeing with infant baptism.

You said that infant baptism didn’t become a part of the Catholic Church until the fourth century. Here is a writing from 215, that specifically says to baptize infants.
Hippolytus - The Apostolic Tradition - “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”

Fine! You convinced me to write something up on your quotations. I feel like I should be studying when I get home from work, and I do most of my discussing with all of you on my phone; but I’ll do it this one time, lol.

The first thing I need you to do, if you would be so kind is show me where in the Catholic Encyclopedia that quote is from. I found it around the internet but I can’t find it in the “New Advent” so that we can discuss it.

I know of this quote, and I know the context surrounding it; but I can’t find the dang thing on New Advent, under Church Fathers. Thanks, I’ll talk to you soon.

 

[pablope]

I asked this before, but will ask again. Did Christ lie when he said to the thief on the cross, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise?” Was the thief baptized? Did the thief go to heaven? Did he first go to purgatory?

Can you not see the many contradictions. In order to answer my question about the thief you will tell me “baptism by desire,” which is completely unsupported.

By saying baptism is required for salvation you are ignoring/contradicting what is stated about salvation in the majority of the new testament.

Well…Scitor, here is thing…you read the Bible and immediately conclude that Paradise means Heaven…and not take into context of what the Jews understood what Paradise was to them…and it shows how interpreting the Bible without benefit of a 2000 yr tradition causes.

Anyway…Paradise…this what Paradise is to the Jews of the time…and what it meant to them when it was spoken then…newadvent.org/cathen/01055a.htm

It occurs in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus the imagery of which is plainly drawn from the popular representations of the unseen world of the dead which were current in Our Lord’s time. According to the Jewish conceptions of that day, the souls of the dead were gathered into a general tarrying-place the Sheol of the Old Testament literature, and the Hades of the New Testament writings (cf. Luke 16:22; in the Greek 16:23). A local discrimination, however, existed among them, according to their deeds during their mortal life. In the unseen world of the dead the souls of the righteous occupied an abode or compartment of their own which was distinctly separated by a wall or a chasm from the abode or compartment to which the souls of the wicked were consigned. The latter was a place of torments usually spoken of as Gehenna (cf. Matthew 5:29, 30; 18:9; Mark 9:42 sqq. in the Latin Vulgate) — the other, a place of bliss and security known under the names of “Paradise” (cf. Luke 23:43) and “the Bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22-23).

Now to your question… Was the thief baptized? Did the thief go to heaven? Did he first go to purgatory?

The thief indeed went to Abraham’s bosom. And in fact…this where Christ went as testified by Peter…prior to His resurrection…in 1peter3:

1 Peter 3:
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

This is one proof.

2nd proof…is the Apostle’s Creed…penned at around AD390…which preceeds your denomination and your interpretation by more than a thousand years…which states thus…Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:The third day he rose again from the dead:

So here you can see how a very early statement of Christian belief and a passage in Scripture merge together.

And my third proof…Icons…which form part of the early church…and which depict what was taught to the early Christians…and their understanding…and these Icons are a representation of what Catholics have taught for 2000 years.

Here is an icon of Abraham’s bosom…forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=725074

And in the icon (sorry, somehow I cannot paste the icon pic)…it shows the representation of the Good Thief…and he is with Abraham at Abraham’s bosom…or as some jews called it…Paradise.

Here is part of the description…The man holding the “cross-stick” is “St. Dismas” which in Catholic tradition, is the good theif who was crucified next to Jesus (Luke 23:39-43), as opposed to the bad who is traditionally named “Gestas.” Dismas is always shown in icons are a half-naked man carrying a cross-stick.
The man with beard holding the child is not God. He is Abraham. “Abraham’s Bosom” was used in Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. (Luke 16:19-31). Lazarus and Good people went to “the bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22) and the rich man and bad people went to “Hades (Luke 16:23).” I think the guy with many heads is the same person.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Fine! You convinced me to write something up on your quotations. I feel like I should be studying when I get home from work, and I do most of my discussing with all of you on my phone; but I’ll do it this one time, lol.

The first thing I need you to do, if you would be so kind is show me where in the Catholic Encyclopedia that quote is from. I found it around the internet but I can’t find it in the “New Advent” so that we can discuss it.

I know of this quote, and I know the context surrounding it; but I can’t find the dang thing on New Advent, under Church Fathers. Thanks, I’ll talk to you soon.

Here’s the citation in question, if I understand what you’re asking for correctly.

At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. Then they shall take off all their clothes. The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry.
[Hippolytus, *Apostolic Tradition, 21, 1-5] ~ 215 AD

I’ve found Apostolic Tradition in several places on the web: here and here.

Also Apostolic Tradition, 21 is cited in William A. Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, vol I., p. 169.
If you search under “children” you get a partial quote from p. 169.

Here is further information that may be of some use to you.

Joachim Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers,1962 notes the following:

(1) Paul and Luke would not have used phrases like “household” and “his whole family” if they wished to exclude infants from those baptized. (p.12)

(2) Neither Hellenistic Greek nor Jewish literature restricted oikos [houshold] to adult members of the family. It means “family.” In the NT the child (paidion) in Jn 4:49 is part of the royal official’s “whole household” (hole oikia). (14, 17-18, 24)

From Gerhard Kittle, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm R. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968, vol. V (=TDNT)** we learn.

(3) Paidion means “little child” : “growing child” : “up to 7 yrs. of age” : and “of undeveloped understanding” (TDNT, V:638)

(4) In the same article we read: “Recent research [Jeremias’ work above among others] makes it fairly certain that when households joined the Church existing children would be baptized. This is supported by all the religious analogies [in secular pagan society], but especially by proselyte baptism of children.” (TDNT, V:650)

(a) analogies - “The family and tribe were an objective cultic fellowship in the ancient world. The newborn child was incorporated in this fellowship from the very first days of its life.” (TDNT, V:643)

(b) proselyte baptism of children - “The [Jewish] proselyte baptism which developed in pre-Christian times was a rite for receiving ‘those not born in holiness’, and it applied to existing children as well as their parents.” If a pregnant non-Jewess is converted the child does not need baptism. “But if the son was born before the mother’s baptism, he would be baptized too.” (TDNT, V:648)

 

[gmanlq]

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.

You are misinformed Scitor,

The Catholic Church’s birth is Pentecost when Jesus breathed on the apostles and said receive the Holy Spirit. We Catholics celebrate this birth of Christ’s Church every year on Pentecost/Descent of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 16:18-21 is Jesus telling Peter I will build my church upon you. Notice the future tense of Jesus’ words. That future time was fulfilled at Pentecost in the upper room. Further, in Acts 2 Peter is responding to adults who ask, “What should we do?” after Peter gave his long speech. Peter is right to answer repent and be baptized as he is talking to a human being of reason who had sinned certainly. It’s all about context my friend. Hope this helps your faith.

 

[bmonk]

Wrong. Evangelicals don’t believe in the necessity (or even existence) of Sacramental Baptism in the first place, so they would hardly be qualified to deal with the issue of infant baptism. Also, your certainty is puzzling since your belief is not explicitly declared in the Bible. You are reading into one isolated quote an opinion or interpretation (which is shared by those “uncertain” Catholics.) But you have no real proof, or biblical quote that proves infants and children who die automatically go straight to heaven. You are just certain about an opinion, just as Catholics are certain with the teaching of the Church. We trust in the mercy of God, no different than yourself.

Actually, in my experience, many Protestants–whatever they may believe about judgment after death–at least preach and talk at funerals as if the believer, or even the ordinary person, believer or not, baptized or not, is “with the Lord now,” or some similar form. Even Catholics speak thus–but most funeral homilies I hear are more in the spirit of “let us pray for him/her, so that they may enter heaven and be with the Lord.” Is it any wonder that they assume that infants and children, baptized or not, also go to heaven?

 

[bmonk]

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.

God did send Ananias to Paul to baptize him so that he could receive the Holy Spirit. But this is admittedly a special case. God intervened directly. Catholics allow for God’s direct intervention, and for special ways to transmit grace–as in the case of Mary, the Mother of God–but we do not then rely on such extraordinary forms in ordinary cases.

Also, with Paul, it seems likely that he knew something of the Gospel already–at least he knew enough to dispute it. He certainly knew enough to proclaim the Gospel within the next few days. All that was needed was for him to align his will with the Church rather than against it.

 

[ckutac]

Real simple question, what part of: Corinthians 2:11-12 do you not understand?
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.

Baptism is the new circumcision, but this time you are circularized by Christ. Circumcision was the admittance into the covenant relationship with God. Circumcision was performed on the 8th day.

Then in Galatians 3:28 we have that it is for everyone both male and female, Gentile or Jew, Free or Slave.

Also keep in mind who Peter is speaking to in Acts 2 38-39.
And Peter said to them, “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. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

He was speaking to Jews. They knew the Jewish law, they knew that circumcision was the acceptance into the family of God. If he then tries to say after that, but you can’t baptize your baby, the Jews would have laughed at him.

This is NOT a difficult thing to understand. In all actuality all Christians for over 1500 years accepted it, and no one questioned it, till some idiots that thought that they could interpret the bible by themselves, and knew more about what Christ wanted than all the disciples, and all written Church history came along. Even though they had zero understanding of how the New Testament was not some completely new thing that came out of nowhere, it was a complete and better fulfillment of the Old Testament. If you don’t understand the Old Testament, you actually have ZERO understanding of the New Testament.

 

[bmonk]

Here’s the reality.

Children growing up in Evangelical households are taught they are saved by Accepting Jesus. Baptism is a non-issue. I know because I have 7 siblings that are all Evangelical. I have dozens of nephews and nieces, and NONE of them are EVER baptized.

Just this past summer one nephew married an Eastern Orthodox Christian and was baptized an Orthodox Christian. This caused my sister (his mother) some amusement, or maybe consternation. It’s hard to say. Her other two children (both adults) are not baptized either. The children just DON’T repent since they are ALREADY saved, so they NEVER get baptized.

Just an example of the EVIL that is done by not believing in Sacramental Baptism and infant baptism in particular.

BTW, one unbaptized nephew is now an Evangelical minister himself! The whole lot of them consider themselves saved, baptized or not.

Don’t forget, even if they commit a “big sin” in not getting baptized, they are STILL SAVED. “Once saved always saved.”

So your comments are empty and meaningless.

It is interesting that, in the Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches, when people were putting off being baptized out of fear of sinning after baptism, there was a reform of reconciliation so that they could be baptized. Similarly, when people were abstaining from Communion for years because they felt unworthy, there was a reform insisting on the “Easter Duty” of receiving communion at least once each year, and strongly encouraging that children of the age of reason be initiated in receiving communion.

Maybe this is a sign that the Evangelicals need a reform? Or it would be–if they believed in and valued the sacraments at all.

 

[JonNC]

If he isn’t lying, then he isn’t very smart at all. Because it would be impossible biblically for him to prove beyond a reasonable doubt like he stated that he did.

I find this approach uncharitable. Sometimes the smartest people misunderstand, or misconstrue. Scitor is, in my view, scripturally and historically incorrect about infant Baptism and the necessity of it, but that is not evidence that he is either lying or lacking in intelligence.

Jon

 

[ckutac]

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.

Actually according to some Early Church History Documents Ananias was the Bishop of Demascus.

Thus, why at first Ananias laid his hands on Paul, to open his eyes. He passed on Apostolic Succession. Then, he took him to be baptized.

 

[bmonk]

Originally Posted by Scitor:

I asked this before, but will ask again. Did Christ lie when he said to the thief on the cross, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise?” Was the thief baptized? Did the thief go to heaven? Did he first go to purgatory?

Can you not see the many contradictions. In order to answer my question about the thief you will tell me “baptism by desire,” which is completely unsupported.

By saying baptism is required for salvation you are ignoring/contradicting what is stated about salvation in the majority of the new testament.

“Baptism of desire” reminds me of what we believe anyways. He would have been Baptized had he been able to, but obviously circumstances prevented him, but that didn’t stop Jesus from promising him Salvation.

Why are infants any different (or the ones who die in childbirth)? Had the circumstances changed and the baby grew up and had a chance to be Baptized then chose Baptism after repentance then such would have happened. Similar to the thief on the cross.

Again, the thief was not baptized as such–there was no opportunity to do so. But then, this is part of how we developed the idea of “baptism by desire” and “baptism by blood”–that those who cannot go through the new birth by water and Holy Spirit can attain salvation as if they had.

But again, in general, this is an unusual case. Not many of us will be martyred; certainly none of us will be martyred next to Jesus Christ. He can do as he wants. The rest of us–we can only do as best we can. And how do we know the best way to conform to the tradition of Christ? By the community that maintains in unbroken line that tradition: the Catholic Church. And, in the Church, Baptism is the foundation of all that follows. It is the way we respond to faith, and is the door to all else.

 

[pablope]

See bolded…T

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.

Oh yes he did.

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

 

[marywarfield]

Actually, the uncertainty among Catholics is what worries us so much. That’s a major drive in the belief that infants do not need Baptism in order to attain Salvation. We believe that an infant would not be condemned nor go to limbo but rather go to where Christ claimed belongs to such as them. Catholics say they’re not quite certain.

That’s because the Church stresses the inheritance
of Adams sin, Original Sin, and Baptists do not.
My understanding from Baptists is the child is born
lacking any drive toward sin but acquire the temptation
as they grow. The Church on the other hand maintains
all humans are born with a capacity to sin therefore
baptized infants.

 

[marywarfield]

In any case I have a problem with the cognitive dissonance
in the thinking of those who refuse Baptism in water.
After all the first thing Jesus did was be baptized
by John in WATER. And I’ve never met a “baptism in
the Spirit only” person who didn’t sport a WWJD? t-shirt
or bumper sticker. And I always say, “exactly. What WOULD
Jesus do? He’d get get baptized in water-first.”
How simple is that? Here is the acronym for the
Carholic bumper sticker- As Jesus Did It So Do We.
(AJDISDW)

Lol

 

[FathersKnowBest]

God did send Ananias to Paul to baptize him so that he could receive the Holy Spirit. But this is admittedly a special case. God intervened directly. Catholics allow for God’s direct intervention, and for special ways to transmit grace–as in the case of Mary, the Mother of God–but we do not then rely on such extraordinary forms in ordinary cases.

Also, with Paul, it seems likely that he knew something of the Gospel already–at least he knew enough to dispute it. He certainly knew enough to proclaim the Gospel within the next few days. All that was needed was for him to align his will with the Church rather than against it.

St. Paul is interesting vis-a-vis his baptism.
He was stricken blind, and then traveled to Damascus,
Ac 9:9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Now, speaking for myself, I’d be mighty thirsty after 3 days.

After having his sight restored, you’d think that he’d be famished and want to eat first thing. But no, he FIRST wanted to be baptised, THEN he took food.

Ac 9:18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,
19 and took food and was strengthened. For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Real simple question, what part of: Corinthians 2:11-12 do you not understand?

Maybe the part where Corinthians is spelled Colossians?

KIDDING!

Baptism is the new circumcision, but this time you are circularized by Christ. Circumcision was the admittance into the covenant relationship with God. Circumcision was performed on the 8th day.

Of course, I agree with your point.

They knew the Jewish law, they knew that circumcision was the acceptance into the family of God. If he then tries to say after that, but you can’t baptize your baby, the Jews would have laughed at him.