infant baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Athanasius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Athanasius

Guest
I am in a dialogue with someone on the issue of infant baptism. I made the comparison between circumcision and baptism, noting that under the old covenant, circumcision was given to infants, and thus, under the Old covenant, baptism may be given to infants. He replied:’

Just because Paul compares circumcision with baptism, does not mean they are the same, at least along the lines of when they take place (as in infant or adult) And I have a question for you. In the old covenant, baby girls weren’t circumcised, so how does that work out? Also, babies were circumcised on their eighth day, baptisms aren’t held on a babies eighth day. So again we have a problem.

How would you suggest I best answer him? Thanks.
 
I would suggest you drop the comparison, which is not valid in any case, and begin by justifying infant baptism on the basis of practice of the Early Church, up until the present time. A study of the Eastern view of the sacraments of initiation would also be helpful because it fully explores their theology.
 
The comparison would come from the fact that the two rites were the means of initiation into the Covenant with God - circumcision into the Old Covenant; Baptism into New Covenant.

Scripture also says that whole households were baptized. One can presume there were infants or young children. (Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33-34; Acts 18:8).

The burden of proof would be on those who wish to claim that there were no infants in these households.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Nita
 
Athanasius said:
… He replied:’

Just because Paul compares circumcision with baptism, does not mean they are the same, at least along the lines of when they take place (as in infant or adult) And I have a question for you. In the old covenant, baby girls weren’t circumcised, so how does that work out? Also, babies were circumcised on their eighth day, baptisms aren’t held on a babies eighth day. So again we have a problem.

How would you suggest I best answer him? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Sure, only males were circumcised. So what? Your point is that infants joined the Old Covenant through circumcision despite their incapacity for personal faith. The “faith” involved was the faith of their parents. Your argument is that an infant can be baptized based on their parent’s faith, just like an infant can be circumcised based on their parent’s faith.

The “eighth day” argument misses the point. Nobody claims that baptism follows the same procedures, rules or regulations as circumcision. The point is that babies, incapable of personal faith, were placed under the Old Covenant by circumcision, just like they now can be placed under the New Covenant by baptism.

BTW, John Calvin, who was about as non-Catholic as you can get while still being even remotely Christian, wrote strongly in support of infant baptism in “Institutes of Christian Religion.” You could encourage your friend to explore why.
 
Gamera said:
Sure, only males were circumcised. So what? Your point is that infants joined the Old Covenant through circumcision. The “faith” involved was the faith of their parents. Your argument is that an infant can be baptized based on their parent’s faith, just like an infant can be circumcised based on their parent’s faith.

The “eighth day” argument misses the point. Nobody claims that baptism follows the same procedures, rules or regulations as circumcision. The point is that babies, incapable of personal faith, were placed under the Old Covenant by circumcision, just like they now can be placed under the New Covenant by baptism.
Click to expand...
 
Athanasius said:
I am in a dialogue with someone on the issue of infant baptism. I made the comparison between circumcision and baptism, noting that under the old covenant, circumcision was given to infants, and thus, under the Old covenant, baptism may be given to infants. He replied:’

Just because Paul compares circumcision with baptism, does not mean they are the same, at least along the lines of when they take place (as in infant or adult) And I have a question for you. In the old covenant, baby girls weren’t circumcised, so how does that work out? Also, babies were circumcised on their eighth day, baptisms aren’t held on a babies eighth day. So again we have a problem.

How would you suggest I best answer him? Thanks.
Click to expand...
The main problem you are going to come across with explaining this is that his view of what baptism is and what our’s is may be different.

Knowing what group of Christians he belongs to would be helpful.

Anyway, the Catholic church views Baptism as an initiation rite that makes a person a member of the City of God by washing away all their sins (Original, Personal (both mortal and venial), and temporal punishment due to sin) and by conferring the Spirit of Adoption (aka Holy Spirit).

Many Evangelicals do not view Baptism in this way. They view it as a public confession of what they believe already happened: Accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. So there is no reason in their mind to be baptised at the earliest the age of reason in children. In other words you have to understand what he believes about Baptism and then deal with that first. If you do not then you are just trying to explain something to him that does not and cannot make sense.
 
Athanasius said:
I am in a dialogue with someone on the issue of infant baptism. I made the comparison between circumcision and baptism, noting that under the old covenant, circumcision was given to infants, and thus, under the Old covenant, baptism may be given to infants. He replied:’

Just because Paul compares circumcision with baptism, does not mean they are the same, at least along the lines of when they take place (as in infant or adult) And I have a question for you. In the old covenant, baby girls weren’t circumcised, so how does that work out? Also, babies were circumcised on their eighth day, baptisms aren’t held on a babies eighth day. So again we have a problem.

How would you suggest I best answer him? Thanks.
Click to expand...
You’ve already received great help, but I’ll add my two :twocents:

You’ve probably already read Kimberly and Scott Hahn on this; I think this passage by Kimberly is a good one on the point:
. . .the male children of the Old Covenant were given the sign of the covenant - circumcision - on the eighth day of life. In other words, a Jewish boy was recognized as a Jew within the covenant as an infant, before he could express any faith of his own. And when he was given the sign of the covenant which made him a Jew, he was expected to live as a Jew, to believe as a Jew, and to be faithful as a Jew. . . .the sign of the New Covenant was something both girls and boys could receive, thereby highlighting another aspect of the New Covenant - in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28). . .if the New Covenant surpasses the Old, why would it exclude children of believers when children had formerly been included? The new converts from Judaism would not have seen this an an improvement. .
Click to expand...
Her husband makes the point in one of his audio-tape studies (I forget which) that in the ancient world in those societies where circumcision was practiced, it was the Jews alone who circumcised infants, whereas the other societies waited until the boy was about to enter manhood; thus it was a rite of passage associated with fertility, where for the Jews circumcision (and later Baptism with the Christians) was a sign of a covenant entered into with God.
 
Thanks to all for the replies. You put into words what I was thinking, but didn’t know how to express.

In the end, I decided to reply this way:

You misunderstood my point. My point was not that baptism parallels in all respects circumcision. It doesn’t. It was simply that, if one could become a member of the old covenant as an infant through circumcision, without personal faith, then why would one not be able to become a member of the New Covenant as an infant through baptism?
 
The objection that baptism doesn’t happen on the 8th day misses the point.

When something occurs on “the 8th day” it signifies that something new is created. Think back to Genesis and the creation of the world. God did his thing in 7 days, so the full cycle of something was 7 days. The next cycle begins on the following day, the 8th day.

Circumsion was done on the 8th day to prepare the way for people becoming a new creation, which occurs at baptism. Once you understand that, you no longer need the hard-and-fast 8-day rule.
 
I would say that it is a valid comparison (sorry puzzleannie ;)).

From the Catechism:
CCC 527 Jesus’ circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham’s descendants, into the people of the covenant. It is the sign of his submission to the Law and his deputation to Israel’s worship, in which he will participate throughout his life. This sign prefigures that “circumcision of Christ” which is Baptism.
Click to expand...
But it would be a good idea to also hit the other points people have mentioned (the practices of the early Church, etc.).
 
Hi Athanasius, here are 2 fairly short posts I made (sorry, I’m not trying to boast, but it’s my own posts I’m familiar with :D) regarding infant baptism.

Post 1
Post 2

p.s. I like what Nita pointed out about neither male nor female for your reply to your associate. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top