Infant Baptism Question

[Atemi]

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.

Our Lord said:

1. make disciples in all the nations
2. baptise those disciples
3. teach those disciples

Matt 28:19 (NAB) “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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”

Obviously we are not to baptise all the nations, because the nations are made up of believers and non-believers alike.

This was never the practice of Christianity.

Only disciples will consent to be baptised. Only disciples will observe our Lord’s commands.

They are “them.”

…

 

[I_Leatherman]

Our Lord said:

1. make disciples in all the nations
2. baptise those disciples
3. teach those disciples

Matt 28:19 (NAB) “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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”

Obviously we are not to baptise all the nations, because the nations are made up of believers and non-believers alike.

This was never the practice of Christianity.

Only disciples will consent to be baptised. Only disciples will observe our Lord’s commands.

They are “them.”

…

No He said;

Matthew 28

19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

He did not say;
… baptise only disciples, only disciples will consent to baptism;

He said: … teach ye all nations; baptising in the name …
teach; baptising … , it is one action if I read just what He said.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

…

but the Bible doesn’t forbid it. Baptism my friend is for EVERYONE to include children and babies.

 

[jemfinch]

The logic of this post is unassailable.

Thanks I’m sure I stole the idea from somewhere, perhaps the catechetical material that converted me (drawn up by the Melkite priest who ultimately Chrismated me, Fr. Ignatius).

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.

Polycarp must have been old indeed if he served the Lord 86 years, even after being baptized as a young adult

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

but the Bible doesn’t forbid it. Baptism my friend is for EVERYONE to include children and babies.

“And the promise is for you AND YOUR CHILDREN…”



Jeremy

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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.

…

Does your religion require “repent” before Baptism? As is mentioned is several posts the Apostle instruction did not seem to include a required “repent” before baptism, in your religion what did Jesus repent before his baptism?

 

[Atemi]

No He said;

Matthew 28

19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Here is an officially approves Catholic translation:

Matt 28:19 (NAB) “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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”

What Catholic translation are you using here?

He did not say;
… baptise only disciples, only disciples will consent to baptism;

Since the church has NEVER practiced water baptising everyone from all nations, who do you suppose was getting baptised and observing Christ’s teachings?

The Apostles were not to go out and baptise every living sould they met.

It is common sense.

…

 

[Atemi]

but the Bible doesn’t forbid it. Baptism my friend is for EVERYONE to include children and babies.

The same can be said, and has been, of Communion.

Yet we find the RCC does not practice what she preaches at least with this argument.

Instead, the RCC has anathematized all who would say that babies can be Communed.

Yet, the Bible doesn’t forbid it…“this promise is for your children…”

I find the “Bible doesn’t forbid it” argument to be one of convenience, not substance, whenever it is brought up.

That is just my experience.

Like I said, to focus our energies on what God does not command, and not on what He does, is a waste of energy, IMO.

…

 

[Atemi]

Does your religion require “repent” before Baptism? As is mentioned is several posts the Apostle instruction did not seem to include a required “repent” before baptism

Yes, in my religion they have Scriptures that teach that the Apostles instructed exactly that:

Act 2:38 “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”

I am not sure if in your religion your Scriptures say the same.

We find it best to not remove parts of Peter’s command.

Repent AND be baptized…every one of you.

…

 

[I_Leatherman]

Here is an officially approves Catholic translation:

Matt 28:19 (NAB) “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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”

What Catholic translation are you using here?

Since the church has NEVER practiced water baptising everyone from all nations, who do you suppose was getting baptised and observing Christ’s teachings?

The Apostles were not to go out and baptise every living sould they met.

It is common sense.

…

The Apostles commission was to all nations, not every single last person in every nation. They were told to, teach; baptising… , this does not preclude baptising infants or children or anyone else. In fact, it says nothing about who should be baptised, only that people of all nations must be taught; baptised, regardless of age or any other possible limiting factor.

What Catholic translation are you using here?

Douay Rheims - (an english tranlation of the Latin Vulgate which translated by St. Jerome in 382AD and the basis for all subsequent Catholic Bibles, so I’m told.)

 

[jmcrae]

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.

…

Why did their direct followers (Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, and, we can reasonably assume that John or someone from one of John’s churches baptized him when he was an infant) practice infant baptism in the late first and early second centuries, as witnessed in the testimony above?

The age of receiving First Holy Communion is a matter of discipline and custom; nobody would be “anathemetized” who gave their baby Holy Communion - but they might be taken aside and have the current practice of the Church explained to them. Not to mention, there are certain Rites in the Church where the custom is, indeed, to give all three Initiation Sacraments at the time of birth - Baptism, Confirmation, and First Holy Communion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Carson

Mandate has several dictionary definitions, and I provided them in my previous post.

Quote:
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.

I’m not sure which is more disturbing: your ignorance of the faith in which you were raised or your hubris in displaying it.

The Baptism of infants
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51
1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52
1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

**III. HOW IS THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM CELEBRATED? **
Christian Initiation
1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.
1230 This initiation has varied greatly through the centuries according to circumstances. In the first centuries of the Church, Christian initiation saw considerable development. A long period of *catechumenate *included a series of preparatory rites, which were liturgical landmarks along the path of catechumenal preparation and culminated in the celebration of the sacraments of Christian initiation.
1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The *catechism *has its proper place here.
1232 The second Vatican Council restored for the Latin Church "the catechumenate for adults, comprising several distinct steps."34 The rites for these stages are to be found in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA).35 The Council also gives permission that: "In mission countries, in addition to what is furnished by the Christian tradition, those elements of initiation rites may be admitted which are already in use among some peoples insofar as they can be adapted to the Christian ritual."36

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1233 Today in all the rites, Latin and Eastern, the Christian initiation of adults begins with their entry into the catechumenate and reaches its culmination in a single celebration of the three sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.37 In the Eastern rites the Christian initiation of infants also begins with Baptism followed immediately by Confirmation and the Eucharist, while in the Roman rite it is followed by years of catechesis before being completed later by Confirmation and the Eucharist, the summit of their Christian initiation.38

Quote:
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.

There is no verse in which infants are denied, either, as your fellow Protestants the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Methodists and many others will be happy to explain to you.

Quote:
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.

First, perhaps you will point out a passage from the Catechism where parents are commanded to baptize their children. In the absence of such, there is no MANDATE or command that even remotely resembles your false claim.

Second, perhaps you will point out a passage from scripture in which we are told specifically NOT to baptize infants.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

…

Are you not in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?

1 Corinthians 7:14
For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

You see, Atemi, an unbelieving spouse is saved by the faith of the believing spouse, and the children are made holy, also.

Now, let’s assume for the moment that the believing spouse has followed the “repent and be baptized” formula that you stressed in another post. Then the “unbelieving and unbaptized” spouse and children are also made holy by this act.

By the way, note that Paul uses the term “sanctified” instead of “justified” in this passage. This is one more example of how the Catholic understanding of the interchangeability of these two terms is scriptural.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

The RCC today mandates water baptism for infants.

This is an absurd accusation, Atemi. The RCC does not “mandate” baptism for anyone! Jesus commanded that we be baptized:

Matt 28:18-20
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,”

Mark 16:15-16
15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

The Church follows this command of Jesus as taught to us by the apostles. Entire households are baptized as demonstrated to us in the book of Acts.

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

The apostles followed Jesus’ command to baptize, and to make disciples. When believers brought their children and infants, baptism was not withheld from them, as Jesus said “suffere the little children to come unto me, and do not hinder them”.
Atemi;2141961:

That is extremely relevant because it means the RCC today is ***not***

following the Apostolic witness, example, and teaching.

I would say that others that do not follow this teaching, in fact, are not following Apostolic teaching.

Why would the RC Magisterium today seem to think ***it knows better***

than the Apostles themselves?

I ask this in all honesty.

If you want, we will get into the Fathers, and it will be easy for you to see that Baptism of infants has been the practice from the very beginning.

The Scriptures are clear

to baptise disciples…believers…only.

There you go adding that “only” again! Yes, it does say to baptize disciples, but it also says that baptism replaces circumcision as the initiation rite into the new covenant. Don’t limit God, Atemi!

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

This is only a problem for you SS folks. Those of us that read and appreciate the Fathers can see that this has been practiced since the beginning.

Not just authorized, but ***mandated***

at threat of grave sin.

This is another absurd accusation. No one has threatened a parent of grave sin for not baptizing an infant !

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. …

We just see it differently, Atemi. Catholics believe that children are gifts from God, and that God places these children in our families so that we can raise them in the faith, and make disciples out of them. We are to train up the children in the way that they should go, so that when they get old,they will not depart from it. We do believe it is negligence not to baptize a child, as well as failure to properly disciple a child in their faith. But, as you can see from your own life, negligence does happen. If anyone has been a victim of grave sin, it is you!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here is an officially approves Catholic translation:

Matt 28:19 (NAB) “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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”

Amen! Catholics love that verse as we do all 73 Books of the Bible.

However, note that the verse does not say, “make disciples IN all nations, baptizing those who say the sinner’s prayer as an outward sign before men of the inward acceptance of me as their personal Lord and Savior.”

Since the church has NEVER practiced water baptising everyone from all nations, who do you suppose was getting baptised and observing Christ’s teachings?

The Apostles were not to go out and baptise every living sould they met.

It is common sense.

…

Sure. No problem. But the Jews sure as heck circumcised every new born male and the church came to baptize in similar fashion.

One of the debates in the early church was whether children were to be baptized on the eighth day.

It wasn’t an issue of IF infants should be baptized; they were concerned with exactly when.

"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).

**Cyprian **

“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])”

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

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Atemi]

First, perhaps you will point out a passage from the Catechism where parents are commanded to baptize their children. In the absence of such, there is no MANDATE or command that even remotely resembles your false claim.

False claim?

1250 The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

Are you saying that denying a child the priceless grace of God is not a grave matter?

You say I am making a false claim, but I know of no educated Catholic parent in their right mind that believes baptising one’s child in Catholicism is optional from the standpoint of the teaching of the Church.

Since you say the RCC does not command that infants in Catholic families be baptised, then it is your position that such is optional according to RC teaching?

That would make a curious thread for sure.

…

 

[jemfinch]

The same can be said, and has been, of Communion.

Yet we find the RCC does not practice what she preaches at least with this argument.

Instead, the RCC has anathematized all who would say that babies can be Communed.

You need to learn your facts better. Eastern Catholics have, and still do give their infants Baptism, Chrismation, and the Eucharist all as infants. In fact, if an Eastern Catholic goes to a Roman Catholic liturgy and takes his child up to receive the Eucharist, the priest is obligated by canon law to provide it.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

First, perhaps you will point out a passage from the Catechism where parents are commanded to baptize their children. In the absence of such, there is no MANDATE or command that even remotely resembles your false claim.

It is, in fact, mandated in Canon law:

Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

Jeremy

 

[jmcrae]

Sure. No problem. But the Jews sure as heck circumcised every new born male and the church came to baptize in similar fashion.

One of the debates in the early church was whether children were to be baptized on the eighth day.

Something important to point out about that debate was that the other side was wanting to baptize younger than eight days - this was not a question of “should we baptize babies, or should we wait until they are older,” but rather, “Is it okay to baptize my seven day old baby, or do I have to wait the extra day?”