Infant Baptism Question

[Atemi]

You didn’t read my post correctly.

Actually, I did.

I said that Judaism required a person who was converting to bring their whole family with them. Because of this they would have expected the same when converting to Christianity. I did not say that the apostles or the Church required them to do so.

It seems that we have a communication breakdown here.

I never said the Apostles required them to. I asked if the Apostles accepted or blessed such a practice where unbelievers were being baptised merely because the father or husband was a believer.

You seem to confirm such a claim here.

You still have not supplied any evidence that the Apostles accepted such behavior in Christianity.

But because it was the common practice in Judaism, many whole families would have converted together. Acts 16:32-33 is an example.

Uh, no.

To be a true convert is to believe the Gospel and repent, not be coerced into water baptism as a non-believer because cultural norms demanded it.

Acts 16 is clear that everyone baptised believed God and His Gospel.

What you claim is an entirely diffenerent scenario not found anywhere in Holy Writ.

…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Actually, I did.

It seems that we have a communication breakdown here.

I never said the Apostles required them to. I asked if the Apostles accepted or blessed such a practice where unbelievers were being baptised merely because the father or husband was a believer.

You seem to confirm such a claim here.

You still have not supplied any evidence that the Apostles accepted such behavior in Christianity.

Uh, no.

To be a true convert is to believe the Gospel and repent, not be coerced into water baptism as a non-believer because cultural norms demanded it.

Acts 16 is clear that everyone baptised believed God and His Gospel.

What you claim is an entirely diffenerent scenario not found anywhere in Holy Writ.

…

? ? It says Paul told the Jailer “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.”(Acts 16:30) So if the Jailer had a baby the following year, why should that child be treated different than any baby in the house the year earlier?

 

[guanophore]

Christ made no exceptions for infants in the Great Commission.

Exactly! What better opportunity to make a disciple than to start in infancy!

Because you cannot preach to infants.

Sure you can! you can also pray over them, bless them, and claim their souls for God.

Are you saying that those converts to the Christian faith in the early church ***coerced*** their wives and possibly teen family members to "convert" as well...all with the official apporval of the Apostles?

If you can please cite a source for this absolutely amazing and novel claim, that would be great.

…

I think that the rebellion of wives and children against the head of the household was not found then like it is now. Wives and children obeyed the head of the household, or they were put to death! Read Leviticus. That is why Joshua could say “as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord”. But, even today in the Eastern countries, wives conform to the faith of their husband when they are married. If she did not want to join his faith, she would not marry. The attitude is more like you see in the book of Ruth, where a person would say “your God shall be my God, and your people, my people”. this is how one can abandon oneself in an act of faith.

 

[Atemi]

? ? It says Paul told the Jailer “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.”(Acts 16:30) So if the Jailer had a baby the following year, why should that child be treated different than any baby in the house the year earlier?

We are way beyond babies here.

 

[mikeledes]

How are babies saved?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Atemi]

Christ made no exceptions for infants in the Great Commission.

Exactly! What better opportunity to make a disciple than to start in infancy!

Must we look up what constitutes a disciple?

Because you cannot preach to infants.

Sure you can! you can also pray over them, bless them, and claim their souls for God.

Sigh.

**Are you saying that those converts to the Christian faith in the early church coerced their wives and possibly teen family members to “convert” as well…all with the official apporval of the Apostles?

If you can please cite a source for this absolutely amazing and novel claim, that would be great.**

I think that the rebellion of wives and children against the head of the household was not found then like it is now.

You did not answer the question.

So it is rebellion if a wife is not a believer in Jesus Christ if the husband is a believer?

But it is not rebellion if a wife is a believer and the husband is not?

LOL.

How can we take this seriously?

Please cite the RCC teaching that says this. I sure hope you are not making this up.

If you are saying that many early Christians were coerced into water baptism when they were non-believers…and they did this with the blessing of the Apostles…please supply some evidence.

Standing alone, such is an outrageous claim.

…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Must we look up what constitutes a disciple?

it means follower

You did not answer the question.

So it is rebellion if a wife is not a believer in Jesus Christ if the husband is a believer?

This is the Pauline Privilege not rebellion

But it is not rebellion if a wife is a believer and the husband is not?

It is still a Pauline Privilege

How can we take this seriously?

Please cite the RCC teaching that says this. I sure hope you are not making this up.

If you are saying that many early Christians were coerced into water baptism when they were non-believers…and they did this with the blessing of the Apostles…please supply some evidence.

Standing alone, such is an outrageous claim.

…

Installing the word “coerced” is separating the post from the practice. As mentioned earlier Act16:30 is a scripture directly as referred to. BTW you can not go passed infants, man does not have control. No Preacher controls who is or is not saved or is baptized, that is the domain of God not man

Hope that helps

 

[jmcrae]

A baby cannot commit to discipleship and neither can their parents commit them.

Sure they can. That’s the whole point of the promises to raise the child in the Catholic faith - to disciple the child in Christ.

That’s why we don’t baptize babies who are not likely to be raised in Catholic homes.

 

[mikeledes]

How are babies saved?

God Bless,
Michael

:coffeeread:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am sorry, but you did not answer the question.

Knowing the practices and history of the early church regarding baptism, is it your position that it was mandated by the Apostles that babies be baptised as it is in the RCC today?

Yes or no?

I already know the practices and teachings of the early church regarding this topic. Thanks for the select clippings of some of ECFs, though.

I just wanted to hear where you are coming from.

…

Mandated is the loaded word here. If mandate means “command”, then I would say that we do not know this. If mandate means “authorize”, then I would say that yes, the Apostles authorized or allowed the baptism of infants.

As reasonable men of both sides of the question acknowledge, there is insufficient data from the scriptures themselves to decide the question definitively one way or the other. Fortunately, we have the Apostolic Authority of the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church to help us interpret those scriptures which pertain to this subject. In the judgment of the Church, the scriptures support infant baptism.

Therefore, by the authority of Jesus Christ who gave the Church the power to bind and to loose, baptism of infants is authorized.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

I am sorry, but you did not answer the question.

Knowing the practices and history of the early church regarding baptism, is it your position that it was mandated by the Apostles that babies be baptised as it is in the RCC today?

Yes or no?

I already know the practices and teachings of the early church regarding this topic. Thanks for the select clippings of some of ECFs, though.

I just wanted to hear where you are coming from.

…

Baptism is mandated by Jesus:

Matt 28:18-20
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 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”

The baptism of entire households was modeled to us by the apostles, as is bringing up children in the faith:

Eph 6:1-4

6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth.” 4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord."

The Apostles assumed that children of Christian parents would be taught to follow the commandments of Jesus, and that they would be brought up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (be made into disciples).

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s actually unrelated to the argument as a whole. The word “household” included infants if the family had infants. That’s all that needs to be proven to show that the example in Scripture indicates that infants should be baptized.

Random Joe Greek Man with wife and child, upon hearing the examples of household baptisms in Scripture, would say, “I and my household will likewise be baptized, and my household includes my infant child because that’s what “household” means”

You don’t need to prove that the three households baptized in Scripture had no children. That could be true, and it wouldn’t prove your point. What you need to prove is that the word “household” (oikia) did not include children.

Of course, you can’t do that, because it’s just not true. A household includes the children of the family if there are children in the family. That’s what I mean now when I talk about my household and it’s what the Greeks and Jews meant back then when they talked about households.

Jeremy

The logic of this post is unassailable.

Scripture authorizes the baptism of “households”. Absent a specific prohibition against baptizing infants, it must be assumed that this means entire households - not partial households.

Considering the importance of Baptism which brings salvation (cf 1 Peter 3:21), the Apostles would have made specific mention of any instructions against infant baptism if they had held the view that infants should not be baptized.

Since Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons (among others) would surely have recalled being baptized in adolesence or as young adults - if this had been the practice of the original Twelve Apostles - we can conclude that they knew nothing of waiting until a child was older.

Since the ECF’s did not argue against infant baptism, we can safely conclude that the practice of the early church - incorporated in its tradition and protected by the charism of infallibility through the Holy Spirit - included baptism of infants.

The declaration that baptism is a symbolic ritual performed as an outward sign of an inward acceptance of Jesus is a novel, theological tradition of Protestant men.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[mikeledes]

The declaration that baptism is a symbolic ritual performed as a sign of an inward acceptance of Jesus is a theological tradition of Protestant men.

Excluding Martin Luther and the Lutheran Church, of course.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Atemi]

How are babies saved?

God Bless,
Michael

By grace.

 

[Atemi]

Mandated is the loaded word here.

Actually, it is not.

It means exactly what is says.

If mandate means “command”, then I would say that we do not know this. If mandate means “authorize”, then I would say that yes, the Apostles authorized or allowed the baptism of infants.

The RCC today mandates water baptism for infants.

Yet you say the Apostles only took the position of “allowing” or tolerating it.

That is extremely relevant because it means the RCC today is not following the Apostolic witness, example, and teaching.

Why would the RC Magisterium today seem to think it knows better than the Apostles themselves?

I ask this in all honesty.

As reasonable men of both sides of the question acknowledge, there is insufficient data from the scriptures themselves to decide the question definitively one way or the other.

No. I do not concede this.

The Scriptures are clear to baptise disciples…believers…only.

There is no case where an infant is said to be water baptised in over 260 chapters of NT.

Therefore, by the authority of Jesus Christ who gave the Church the power to bind and to loose, baptism of infants is authorized.

Not just authorized, but mandated at threat of grave sin.

And what we have is an early church where they were not told to baptise their babies. If Original Sin is true…then that would be negligence beyond description.

…

 

[Atemi]

Baptism is mandated by Jesus:

I know, but that is not what I asked.

Who did Christ mandate to be water baptised?

Matt 28:18-20
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 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”

Here He is clear to baptise only His disciples.

The baptism of entire households was modeled to us by the apostles, as is bringing up children in the faith:

The Apostles assumed that children of Christian parents would be taught to follow the commandments of Jesus, and that they would be brought up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (be made into disciples).

Again, that is not the question.

Did Christ, and obviously the Apostles, mandate that babies be water baptised?

…

 

[Atemi]

The logic of this post is unassailable.

Scripture authorizes the baptism of “households”.

No it does not, Randy. You will find no such “authorization” anywhere in Holy Writ.

What you will find is that the households of some select individuals were said to be baptised.

That’s it.

If whole households were authorized to be water baptised, then that would mean that all unbelievers in each household, adult or not, are to be baptised as well.

This is not the Apostolic witness.

…

 

[Mannyfit75]

No it does not, Randy. You will find no such “authorization” anywhere in Holy Writ.

What you will find is that the households of some select individuals were said to be baptised.

That’s it.

If whole households were authorized to be water baptised, then that would mean that all unbelievers in each household, adult or not, are to be baptised as well.

This is not the Apostolic witness.

…

UM, I have one question. Is there Scripture proof that we cannot baptize infants? I read the NT many times and it doesn’t forbid it. The only proof we have is in the writings of the ECF.

“And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years…” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

“Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?” Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord.” Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

 

[Atemi]

UM, I have one question. Is there Scripture proof that we cannot baptize infants? I read the NT many times and it doesn’t forbid it.

What the Scriptures do tell us is WHO to baptise: those that have repented and become believers and disciples of Jesus Christ.

There is no need to list all the folks not to baptise when it is clear about who to baptise.

When God gives us a command, we should not seek to do what He did not tell us but what He did.

…

 

[I_Leatherman]

The Apostle said Christ commissioned him to teach all nations; baptising them in the name…
Teach all Nations; baptising …

It looks to me that it is both together, not first one then the other.
In Catholicism infant baptism and teaching begin at the same time. The child is confirmed in her faith to make her strong, that is the completion and perfection of her baptism.