Infant Baptism Question

[Atemi]

Good point; also the family of the jailer, who were all baptized by Paul and Silas on the basis of his faith.

No way. I am sorry.

Are we to believe that the Apostle baptised unbelievers in the jailor’s family?

Your contention would be that such is Apostolic practice.

This would be a very great error and without precedence in either the Word of God or early church history.

How anyone could come to the conclusion that the Apostles would willfully baptise unbelievers, especially adults, is beyond all reason, IMV.

…

 

[Mannyfit75]

No way. I am sorry.

Are we to believe that the Apostle baptised unbelievers in the jailor’s family?

Your contention would be that such is Apostolic practice.

This would be a very great error and without precedence in either the Word of God or early church history.

How anyone could come to the conclusion that the Apostles would willfully baptise unbelievers, especially adults, is beyond all reason, IMV.

…

They baptized believers. Even in Acts, Apostles baptized ENTIRE HOUSEHOLDS… to include slaves, children, servants, etc.

Your argument falls short yet again… My Non-Catholic Christian friend.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Although most Protestant traditions baptize babies, Baptists and those influenced by Baptists insist that baptism is only for those who have come to faith. Nowhere in the New Testament, they point out, do we read of infants being baptized.

On the other hand, nowhere do we read of children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized. The only explicit baptism accounts in the Bible involve converts from Judaism or paganism. For children of believers there is no explicit mention of baptism—either in infancy or later.

As we will see, there is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism. Though passages in the New Testament contain principles supporting infant baptism. (e.g., Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21), the first overt statements that the children of believing households were baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision. (see quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Lev. 12:2–3, Col 2:11–12).

Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes. (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptism had been deferred until the age of reason.

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below. (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna who at that time was Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.

Irenaeus

“And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan” [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” [John 3:5]… (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190])

Irenaeus

He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age. (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189])
Hippolytus

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. (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215])

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201frs.asp

 

[Atemi]

They baptized believers. Even in Acts, Apostles baptized ENTIRE HOUSEHOLDS… to include slaves, children, servants, etc.

Your argument falls short yet again… My Non-Catholic Christian friend.

Please pay better attention to the thread, Manny.

I know they baptised believers. That is my point.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please pay better attention to the thread, Manny.

I know they baptised believers. That is my point.

And their kids…that is our point.

The early Christians were Jews who had circumcised on the eighth day…they understood that God wanted infants to enter into the New Covenant just as much as He had wanted them to enter the old.

They baptized their infants.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Mannyfit75]

Please pay better attention to the thread, Manny.

I know they baptised believers. That is my point.

How do you defined entire household then? Who lives in a household?

 

[Atemi]

And their kids…that is our point.

No.

The point of the post I responded to was:

“the family of the jailer, who were all baptized by Paul and Silas on the basis of his faith.”

This same thought was echoed by another RC poster as well:

“forgiveness of sins based on someone else’s faith is certainly biblical”

This poster was specifically addressing adults.

This idea goes way beyond infants and into something much different.

The early Christians were Jews who had circumcised on the eighth day…they understood that God wanted infants to enter into the New Covenant just as much as He had wanted them to enter the old.

Then they would have only baptised their boy babies.

I suppose the girl babies never entered into the Old Covenant?

They baptized their infants.

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?

…

 

[Atemi]

How do you defined entire household then? Who lives in a household?

Depends on the household. I know many, many households without an infant in them.

But all this is not related to my point above.

 

[Zooey]

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?

…

I cannot speak for my Catholic brothers & sisters, but Your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist’s position is:

Yes! It was mandated by the Apostles that babies be baptized as it is in the Catholic Church today.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No.

The point of the post I responded to was:

"the family of the jailer, who were all baptized by Paul and Silas on the basis of his faith."This same thought was echoed by another RC poster as well:

"forgiveness of sins based on someone else’s faith is certainly biblical"This poster was specifically addressing adults.

This idea goes way beyond infants and into something much different.

Then they would have only baptised their boy babies.

I suppose the girl babies never entered into the Old Covenant?

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?

…

Is it your position - based upon scripture alone - that baptism of infants is prohibited? Is there a verse?

As for the practice of the early Church which followed the teachings of the Apostles:

Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or “the circumcision of Christ”: “In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but “**aptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21).

The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)

Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

Hippolytus

“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” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

(cont.)**

 

[Randy_Carson]

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (*Letters *64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (*Oration on Holy Baptism *40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly *, if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).

(cont.)*

 

[Randy_Carson]

John Chrysostom

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (*Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian *1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (*On Baptism, Against the Donatists *4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (*The Literal Interpretation of Genesis *10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (*Letters *166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (*Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants *1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Carthage V

“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II

“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

from catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

It has also been said that if a child cannot receive that same free gift from God without their parents doing this or that, then we must somehow earn salvation as well.

And yes, that is not true.

Well, God can save whoever He wants, regardless of what people do, or don’t do. He said suffer the little children to come unto Him, for of such is the Kingdom. Children are naturally disposed toward faith, and if it is nurtured, when they get older, they will not depart from it. Since baptism has replaced circumcision as an initiation rite in the new covenant, it is understandable that all the first generation Christians would want to baptize their children (bring them to Christ).

With regard to “doing this or that” I can only note that God gives His Holy Spirit to those that obey him:

2 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him." Acts 5:32

Jesus has commanded Baptism, and has stated that His Spirit will be given to those who obey.

Matt 28:18 - Mark 1:1
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “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, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

I think where Catholics fail (as one who was failed in this way I can say this) is the failure to make disciples out of the children once they are baptized.

 

[Atemi]

Is it your position - based upon scripture alone - that baptism of infants is prohibited? Is there a verse?

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.

…

 

[Atemi]

Matt 28:18 - Mark 1:1
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “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, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

I think where Catholics fail (as one who was failed in this way I can say this) is the failure to make disciples out of the children once they are baptized.

You do understand that it is Christ’s command that it is disciples that are to be baptised, not the baptised to be made into disciples, right?

Read the command you posted again:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…”

First make disciples…then baptise those disciples.

If anyone is baptising folks who are not yet disciples, as you admit, then they are putting the cart before the horse, IMO.

Christ gave a different order of events.

…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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.

…

You do understand that it is Christ’s command that it is disciples that are to be baptised, not the baptised to be made into disciples, right?

Read the command you posted again:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…”

First make disciples…then baptise those disciples.

If anyone is baptising folks who are not yet disciples, as you admit, then they are putting the cart before the horse, IMO.

Christ gave a different order of events.

…

Actually the RCC baptizes people of any age, as did the Apostles (whole households). The ordained minister must believe the candidate ( catechumen ) is reasonably attempting to be a Catholic. If atheists parents ask a Priest to baptize their child the Priest makes the decision as to whether that child is being brought to the Church to learn Christianity. If the Priest doubts then the former child may return as an adult to make the same request. Baptism is not age based, it based on coming to Christ. Most Catholics bring their children to Christ as soon as possible. The bible has been passages warning not to wait before coming to Christ, we see no reason the passages do not apply to Baptism. BTW Catholic believe there are other forms of Baptism (desire & blood) which can be achieved in the absence of conventional Baptism.

For the OP: The baptized child would remain in a state of “Grace” until old enough to commit sin. Sin requires a knowledge base.

 

[Atemi]

For the OP: The baptized child would remain in a state of “Grace” until old enough to commit sin. Sin requires a knowledge base.

All sin except Original Sin.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

All sin except Original Sin.

Original sin is inherited. Some issues that could be creating confusion are (1) if a child dies unbaptized before the age of consent(reason) are they destined to hell? The Church teaches these children are in the hands of God. Many individual Catholics consider the children as heaven bound because they were not able to commit sin thus the original sin did not manifest to fruition within these children, however this is not official Catholic teaching. (2) The RCC does not teach it can save anybody. Catholics are taught God alone saves. The Church does God’s teaching, shepherds his sheep, etc. the church lacks authority to send anyone to heaven the Church instructs them how to live on earth.

Hope that clears it up

 

[TNT]

All sin except Original Sin.

So, all are born ONCE, and not again, and are Heaven ready from the womb…unitl a certain age of maturity, the exact time we know not?
Is that your position?
UNLESS a man be born of water AND the Spirit…( aka born AGAIN) he cannot enter the kingdom.
Where is the exception clause?

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

…Yes, Especially when you can read the early church account of the martyrdom of Polycarp (Chapter 9:5) and see him tell the proconsul judging him that at 86 years old he had been a Christian for 86 years and “have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?”

You do understand that it is Christ’s command that it is disciples

that are to be baptised, not the baptised to be made into disciples, right?

Read the command you posted again:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…”

First make disciples…then baptise those disciples.

If anyone is baptising folks who are not yet disciples, as you admit, then they are putting the cart before the horse, IMO.

Christ gave a different order of events.This is your interpretation but it ignores many things that are not specifically about infant baptism… like its necessity for salvation as clearly stated many places in the NT, especially like Acts 2:38 and 22:16. Also…with respect to infant baptism, the comparison to circumcision is not coincidental.

If infant circumcision (as commanded by God) initiated the child into the community of faith as a Jew without any reservation, why then would that same principle not carry over into Christian belief and practice. In the case of circumcision, the profession of faith was not made by the child but by the parents and by extension the whole community of faith, yet this was commanded by God and was clearly efficacious to making the infant a full member of the Jewish faith. IMV the n-Cs that deny infants baptism do their people a grave disservice and ignore a clear Biblical principle, probably just because they are afraid to embrace anything that might make them appear “Catholic.”

All sin except Original Sin.

Which is a given.