Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[Scitor]

Right you are! How about we pose your question like this: “I am Southern Baptist and we do not believe in infant baptism. We have a scriptural basis for our beliefs. The Catholic Church practices infant baptism. Could you please explain the reasons, and any scriptural support behind that belief?”

World of difference, but the same question. Honestly, we get gun-shy around here. There have been many new users who burst through the doors with both guns blazing against the Catholic Church. A very dramatic entrance, but not one that produces very much useful dialog. So, let us begin…

Point taken. My apologies. I should have titled my topic differently.

 

[spiderweb]

Um…did you read verse 12, "In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh** was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith** in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

How about Genesis 17:14 “The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant” That would also include the “infant of eight days old” as seen in verse 12.

It is not the “faith” of the infant that has himself circumcised, but rather the faith of the parents that has the child circumcised, and by doing so the child through no belief of his own is brought into the covenant relationship with God.

"It states very clearly that you are raised in your faith, not your parents, or any other.

So again, belief precedes baptism."

So someone is able to raise themselves in their faith without any direction from anyone including their parents? Then what is the purpose of the Apostles teaching anyone, or the parents taking their children to church? What faith are you being raised in if you have no faith when you are born?

 

[Amo_a_Jesus]

How about Genesis 17:14 “The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant” That would also include the “infant of eight days old” as seen in verse 12.

It is not the “faith” of the infant that has himself circumcised, but rather the faith of the parents that has the child circumcised, and by doing so the child through no belief of his own is brought into the covenant relationship with God.

"It states very clearly that you are raised in your faith, not your parents, or any other.

So again, belief precedes baptism."

So someone is able to raise themselves in their faith without any direction from anyone including their parents? Then what is the purpose of the Apostles teaching anyone, or the parents taking their children to church? What faith are you being raised in if you have no faith when you are born?

Hey spiderweb I agree with you, and your post have my wonder, if you need faith to be baptized, what is the point to take our children to church? lets say that at maybe 10 you know maybe more but lets say 10, you already understand and have faith in Jesus, so with that idea we should star bring kids to church around that age right?

 

[ahs]

Um…did you read verse 12, "In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh** was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith** in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

It states very clearly that you are raised in your faith, not your parents, or any other.

So again, belief precedes baptism.

That verse does not say that belief precedes Baptism for all who can be Baptized. Paul’s audience were those who were able to read, which would logically exclude infants. That does not mean that Batism was only for those who could profess Faith. The Scriptures only say, in this verse you provided, that those who professed Faith have also been Baptized in a Baptism which is equated with “cicumcision not performed by human hands”. There is nothing there that says we can’t profess Faith for our children, so why do you believe we can’t?

Can you address Post #37?
(And you might want to take a look at the links in Post #36 to give you a better idea about what/why Catholics actually believe regarding Infant Baptism. They are fairly quick reads.)

 

[JonNC]

Why not straighten out your Protestant brothers before aiming your guns at the Catholic Church?

From the Wiki: 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 would have no more luck with Lutherans than he will have with you.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Um…did you read verse 12, "In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh** was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith** in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

It states very clearly that you are raised in your faith, not your parents, or any other.

So again, belief precedes baptism.

Scitor,
Are you under the impression that infants cannot have faith?
Are you under the impression that infants, when baptized and receiving the Holy Spirit, do not have faith?

Jon

 

[spiderweb]

Hey spiderweb I agree with you, and your post have my wonder, if you need faith to be baptized, what is the point to take our children to church? lets say that at maybe 10 you know maybe more but lets say 10, you already understand and have faith in Jesus, so with that idea we should star bring kids to church around that age right?

No, I disagree with your statement as I understand it (I could be reading it wrong). You do need faith to be baptized, but in the case of a small child it can be the parents faith. Baptism is a spiritual reconciliation with God. Jesus physically healed several people in the Gospels based on the faith of the parents or friends of that person. Could he not spiritually heal people through baptism based on the parents faith?

Children still need a savior. They are still under the penalty of the original sin of Adam which is separation from God. Even though they themselves have not committed a personal sin, the sin of Adam remains, which is why children can still die. It is the penalty of original sin. True, God can save people who have not been baptized, but when he has given us and commanded us a means of reconciliation with him, then we would be wrong to neglect it. “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18).

Sorry, this has been a long response to the original statement about the 10 year old. I would do as St. Paul commands.

“And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:4)

This is both physical and spiritual nurture and admonition. I think you would agree that it is wrong to ignore our our own spiritual well being and growth, wouldn’t it also be wrong to neglect our children’s spiritual growth as well?

 

[Scitor]

Scitor,
Are you under the impression that infants cannot have faith?
Are you under the impression that infants, when baptized and receiving the Holy Spirit, do not have faith?

Jon

Yes to both. Infants are not capable of having faith.

However, I do believe that infants are under the grace of God whether they are baptized or not.

 

[chero23]

Yes to both. Infants are not capable of having faith.

However, I do believe that infants are under the grace of God whether they are baptized or not.

Everyone’s under God’s grace. God doesn’t turn his back against anybody. Were the ones who want to make rules and interpret God under our rules. We have tons of evidence from historical, early writings to the bible of infants being baptized. You don’t change that for your convenience.

 

[Scitor]

“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.

It is true that in this passage Peter promises that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is promised not only to the adults, but to “their children.” This verse is used by many to argue on this basis that baptism must be administered to children of believing parents.

In my opinion, this interpretation reads too much into the text. We must note that Peter goes on to say that the promise is “for all who are far away.” But no one interprets Peter to be suggesting that we should therefore baptize all Gentiles. The promise is for them in the sense that God wants to pour out his Spirit upon them (Ac 2:16). But they only become recipients of the promise — and we should only baptize them — when they make a personal decision to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. This is why Peter immediately adds that the promise is for “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” It is not for everyone in general. It is for everyone who will repent and believe, and thus for everyone whom God calls.

The same holds true for Peter’s assertion that the promise is not only for the adults in Peter’s audience, but for their children. God wants their children to receive the Holy Spirit, but the promise is only applied to them, and we should only baptize them, when they personally repent and believe.

Defenders of infant baptism argue that the references to households being baptized in Acts suggests that infants were baptized along with adults (Ac 11:13-14; 16:15; 30-34; 18:8). There is no reason to assume this, however. When considering recorded history at this time it was the norm that all servants were included in a “household” in the ancient Roman world. Children, however, generally were not. This seems to be Luke’s perspective, for in the same context in which he speaks about households being baptized, he speaks about households being taught, believing and rejoicing (Ac 16:32; 34; 18:8).

Again, it’s important to notice that every example of someone “actually” being baptized in the New Testament was of a person old enough to decide to follow Christ on their own. Never do we read about infants being baptized.
For example, it was only after the Samaritans “believed Philip” as he preached the good news that “they were baptized, both men and women” (Ac 8:12). It was only after the Ethiopian eunuch embraced the good news about Jesus that he was baptized (Ac 8:35-36). The apostle Paul was baptized after he encountered Jesus and obeyed the heavenly vision (Ac 9:18).

Even Peter, he commanded Cornelius and his household to be baptized only after he saw evidence of their faith in Jesus Christ (Ac 10:44-48). It was only after God opened Lydia’s heart and she believed that she and her household were baptized (Ac 16:14-15). And it was only after the disciples of John the Baptist accept Paul’s teaching about Jesus that they were baptized and received the Holy Spirit (Ac 19:5-6). Without exception baptism follows faith and constitutes the first act of discipleship made by a responsible person who has decided to turn from their sinful way of life and submit their life to Jesus.

 

[Scitor]

I might as well address this while I’m at it since you brought it up. We know that OSAS is not Biblical because there are no clear passages to support it but many clear passages that contradict it. One example would be from Hebrews.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Hebrews 10:26-31)

If OSAS is true, how is it that one who was “sanctified by the blood of the covenant” (i.e. by the blood of Jesus Christ) can enter into “judgment and fiery indignation?” How can it be said that there is no more sacrifice for his sins if he has been saved?

QNDNNDQDCE…do you mind if I start a new thread with you post. OSAS may end up being a fairly lengthy thread.

 

[Scitor]

"It states very clearly that you are raised in your faith, not your parents, or any other.

So again, belief precedes baptism."

**So someone is able to raise themselves in their faith without any direction from anyone including their parents? ** Then what is the purpose of the Apostles teaching anyone, or the parents taking their children to church? What faith are you being raised in if you have no faith when you are born?

Spiderweb, I think you have a misinterpreted the use of the word "raised’ in this verse. It has nothing to do with being raised by your parents or any other adult. Raised here is used in the context of being baptized.

Christ is risen from the dead as the head and representative of his people, and they are risen with him; and their baptism is also an emblem of his and their resurrection, being administered by immersion, in which way only this can be signified; for as the going down into the water, and being under it, represents Christ’s descending into the state of the dead, and his continuance in it, so the emersion, or coming up out of the water, represents his rising from the dead, and that of his people in him, in order to walk in newness of life; for the apostle’s meaning is, that in baptism one is risen with Christ, as well as in it buried with him.

And, yes, of course I believe parents have a duty to raise their children in the faith of Christ. But, it will be the child’s responsibility to accept Christ as his savior or not. I can only guide him and pray for him. I cannot make the decision for him (or her). That will be between him (or her) and Christ.

 

[Scitor]

Everyone’s under God’s grace. God doesn’t turn his back against anybody. Were the ones who want to make rules and interpret God under our rules. We have tons of evidence from historical, early writings to the bible of infants being baptized. You don’t change that for your convenience.

I am not changing anything. There are many examples of man in scripture trying to change Christ’s teaching. This is why I do not rely on mans tradition. I prefer to use the writings of the earliest church leaders…those who wrote the scriptures.

 

[JonNC]

Yes to both. Infants are not capable of having faith.

I would contend you are wrong on both counts.

However, I do believe that infants are under the grace of God whether they are baptized or not.

They may be under His grace, but baptism is necessary.

Jon

 

[Scitor]

I would contend you are wrong on both counts.

They may be under His grace, but baptism is necessary.

Jon

Jon…just to make sure I am understanding this…are you saying (like a few others on this thread) that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

Does the Catholic Church teach that baptism is required for salvation? If yes, maybe we should start a new thread on this.

 

[JonNC]

Jon…just to make sure I am understanding this…are you saying (like a few others on this thread) that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

Does the Catholic Church teach that baptism is required for salvation? If yes, maybe we should start a new thread on this.

Speaking as a Lutheran, yes. From the Augsburg Confession:

Article IX: Of Baptism.

1] Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.

3] They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Scitor, you have avoided a difficult question. What is the fate of infants who die without baptism? It is important that you address this, especially since no infants would be baptized if you had your way.

You allege that the mentions of faith in conjunction with baptism necessitate that one have an active faith in order to be baptized. For example, Christ said to his disciples, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). This cuts both ways. If infants cannot be baptized because, as you say, they cannot believe, then, likewise, it is not possible for them to be saved because they cannot believe. He that believeth not shall be damned.

Christ also states that baptism is necessary for salvation without ever specifying that his words do not apply to infants, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Not only is this true, but it is “verily, verily” true. This is a most solemn truth then! We cannot cast aside the words of our Savior.

You have to address this dilemma because it currently appears to an outside observer that you are trying to have it both ways. Do all infants go to hell? Most people would say this is monstrous, you among them I am sure, so I will pass over that possibility. Something has to give. If salvation is not contingent upon belief in the case of infants, why must we say belief is necessary for the baptism of infants? If baptism is not necessary for salvation, why does our Lord say it is?

QNDNNDQDCE…do you mind if I start a new thread with you post. OSAS may end up being a fairly lengthy thread.

You do not need my permission to start a thread about OSAS. You will have many takers regardless. Please PM the link when you make it.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Yes to both. Infants are not capable of having faith.

However, I do believe that infants are under the grace of God whether they are baptized or not.

So I suppose the “none are righteous” “all have sinned” thing doesn’t actually apply to anyone under a certain age?

 

[JamesTheJust]

I am not changing anything. There are many examples of man in scripture trying to change Christ’s teaching. This is why I do not rely on mans tradition. I prefer to use the writings of the earliest church leaders…those who wrote the scriptures.

But you completely disregard writings of the closest disciples and friends of those who wrote the Scriptures? You have not responded to any of the quotes I provided much earlier in the thread which are clear examples of Ante-Nicene Fathers supporting infant Baptism.

You said the doctrine was invented by Honorius and Theodosius II. I gave proof to the contrary. Now would be the time where you provide counter-evidence, which you have not done.

 

[JamesTheJust]

You do not need my permission to start a thread about OSAS. You will have many takers regardless. Please PM the link when you make it.

I would request that he post the link in this thread. I imagine that many posters on this thread along with myself will be able to thoroughly contribute to the discussion.