Infant baptism

[Mom_of_one]

I am part of a debate on another forum and someone brought up infant baptism. So, I did my research and posted info from the Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers. I mentioned, thanks to an article from Catholic Answers, how Paul, in Col 2:11-12, compared baptism to circumcison and if infants were meant to be left out of being baptized, he wouldn’t have compared it to circumcision, something that is usually only done to babies.

So someone brings up that since circumcision is done only to males, then females should be left out of baptism. And then I was stumped. I get the idea that he thinks that this helps prove his case that only adults should be baptized, after they make their profession of faith.

Also, the earliest Church Father I can find that has anything to say on baptism is from 180AD. Again, he thinks that this proves his case, since there is nothing before that, like from say 40A.D.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Church_Militant]

You forget the many references to baptisms of whole households in Acts.

The apostolic Church baptized whole “households” (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the term “households” indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14).

Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be “brought to Christ” in their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism.
catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

Make then show you where it is forbidden to do so in the NT.

 

[DeFide]

Mom of one:

I am part of a debate on another forum and someone brought up infant baptism. So, I did my research and posted info from the Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers. I mentioned, thanks to an article from Catholic Answers, how Paul, in Col 2:11-12, compared baptism to circumcison and if infants were meant to be left out of being baptized, he wouldn’t have compared it to circumcision, something that is usually only done to babies.

So someone brings up that since circumcision is done only to males, then females should be left out of baptism. And then I was stumped. I get the idea that he thinks that this helps prove his case that only adults should be baptized, after they make their profession of faith.

Also, the earliest Church Father I can find that has anything to say on baptism is from 180AD. Again, he thinks that this proves his case, since there is nothing before that, like from say 40A.D.

Any help would be appreciated.

A.D. 40?! When does your friend think the New Testament books were completed?

Secondly, the early church clearly baptised females, since all were in need of salvation. Circumcision is only a partial prefigurement of Baptism, since we also know that Baptism is for Gentiles as well.

scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#tradition-II

 

[Mom_of_one]

Church Militant:

You forget the many references to baptisms of whole households in Acts.

The apostolic Church baptized whole “households” (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the term “households” indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14).

Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be “brought to Christ” in their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism.
catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

Make then show you where it is forbidden to do so in the NT.

I did post that about baptizing entire households. I got asked, “Well, did their households include animals?” Like that has to do with anything.

And these particular posters are from the Church of Christ. They think if it isn’t specificlly commanded in the NT, it is forbidden.

And as for that link, I’ll check it out. Thanks.

 

[FCEGM]

Mom of one:

I am part of a debate on another forum and someone brought up infant baptism. So, I did my research and posted info from the Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers. I mentioned, thanks to an article from Catholic Answers, how Paul, in Col 2:11-12, compared baptism to circumcison and if infants were meant to be left out of being baptized, he wouldn’t have compared it to circumcision, something that is usually only done to babies.

So someone brings up that since circumcision is done only to males, then females should be left out of baptism. And then I was stumped. I get the idea that he thinks that this helps prove his case that only adults should be baptized, after they make their profession of faith.

Also, the earliest Church Father I can find that has anything to say on baptism is from 180AD. Again, he thinks that this proves his case, since there is nothing before that, like from say 40A.D.

Any help would be appreciated.

Yes, as you read through the Old Testament (and the New), only 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. 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.

Now the sign of the New Covenant was/is something both girls and boys could/can receive, thereby highlighting another aspect of the New Covenant: in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28). St. Paul uses this to show that whereas the Old Covenant sign was only for men (and for Jews and male converts to Judaism), now in the New Covenant that former ritual is not only surpassed in the truth that the exterior sign expresses, but also in the fact that no one is exempt from ability to participate in that Covenant.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mom of one:

I am part of a debate on another forum and someone brought up infant baptism. So, I did my research and posted info from the Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers. I mentioned, thanks to an article from Catholic Answers, how Paul, in Col 2:11-12, compared baptism to circumcison and if infants were meant to be left out of being baptized, he wouldn’t have compared it to circumcision, something that is usually only done to babies.

So someone brings up that since circumcision is done only to males, then females should be left out of baptism. And then I was stumped. I get the idea that he thinks that this helps prove his case that only adults should be baptized, after they make their profession of faith.

Also, the earliest Church Father I can find that has anything to say on baptism is from 180AD. Again, he thinks that this proves his case, since there is nothing before that, like from say 40A.D.

Any help would be appreciated.

Infant baptism, like the “trinity” is not mentioned until later in Christian history because there was no disagreement until later in Christian history.

As for infant baptism, you may mention that it occurred before Christianity. The Jews used to baptise entire households of converts into Christianity, including infants, as modern-day Jews continue to do today.

The infant girls were baptized, but the infant boys baptized and circumcised. It would be very much a unlikely departure for Jewish Christians to then suddenly stop the practice of baptizing infants without at least some early church discussion on the matter (as is the case with circumcision).

 

[NotWorthy]

Mom of one:

Also, the earliest Church Father I can find that has anything to say on baptism is from 180AD. Again, he thinks that this proves his case, since there is nothing before that, like from say 40A.D.

Any help would be appreciated.

Tell them to revise their date:
“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), in ANF,I:167

Notworthy

 

[Lost_Found]

Another reference is in Peter’s speech of Acts 2:38-40.

“…is for you and your children, and for all those who are far away, for those whom the Lord our God will call to himself.”

My evangelical friend tried to claim the children must have been of the age of reason but I just responded “a child, ipso facto, is a child.”

And another reference is in Romans 5 when Paul talks about original sin, although you’d need to link baptism with washing away original sin. I would present it to them, just the same. When they come back to you with other quotes of sin not being passed from father to son, just tell them you agree but this is a different type of sin, otherwise ask them to explain what Paul is talking about here.

 

[NotWorthy]

Mom of one:

And these particular posters are from the Church of Christ. They think if it isn’t specificlly commanded in the NT, it is forbidden.

And as for that link, I’ll check it out. Thanks.

But our friends, the Church of Christ feel that the Church didn’t go into Apostasy until 275. How can this be if we were already teaching Apostasy in 180? These guys really have to get their “facts” straight.

Notworthy

 

[mumof5]

We are told that ‘the household’ is baptised but we are never explicitly told that included infants. Nor are we told it excluded them. The fact is, we don’t know for sure. The household did include servants and those who believed.

Please note WHEN and HOW these people were baptised:
Acts 2:40-42 (Believers at Pentecost)
Acts 8:12-13 (Converts in Samaria)
The Ethiopian Eunuch - Acts 8: 36-39.
Saul of Tarsus - Acts 9: 17-20
Lydia of Thyatira - Acts 16:14-15
Philippian Jailerand Household- Acts 16:31-34
Believers at Corinth - Acts 18:8

Water baptism took place AFTER a person became a follower of Jesus and by full immersion. In obedience, none refused.

 

[mumof5]

mumof5:

We are told that ‘the household’ is baptised but we are never explicitly told that included infants. Nor are we told it excluded them. The fact is, we don’t know for sure. The household did include servants and those who believed.

Please note WHEN and HOW these people were baptised:
Acts 2:40-42 (Believers at Pentecost)
Acts 8:12-13 (Converts in Samaria)
The Ethiopian Eunuch - Acts 8: 36-39.
Saul of Tarsus - Acts 9: 17-20
Lydia of Thyatira - Acts 16:14-15
Philippian Jailerand Household- Acts 16:31-34
Believers at Corinth - Acts 18:8

Water baptism took place AFTER a person became a follower of Jesus and by full immersion. In obedience, none refused.

Funny how the thread dies when biblical evidence is posted (sorry, just echoing what I’ve been accused of in another thread).

 

[Eden]

mumof5:

Funny how the thread dies when biblical evidence is posted (sorry, just echoing what I’ve been accused of in another thread).

Biblical evidence? Where in the bible does it say infants are not to be baptised?

 

[threadkiller]

mumof5:

We are told that ‘the household’ is baptised but we are never explicitly told that included infants. Nor are we told it excluded them. The fact is, we don’t know for sure. The household did include servants and those who believed.

Please note WHEN and HOW these people were baptised:
Acts 2:40-42 (Believers at Pentecost)
Acts 8:12-13 (Converts in Samaria)
The Ethiopian Eunuch - Acts 8: 36-39.
Saul of Tarsus - Acts 9: 17-20
Lydia of Thyatira - Acts 16:14-15
Philippian Jailerand Household- Acts 16:31-34
Believers at Corinth - Acts 18:8

Water baptism took place AFTER a person became a follower of Jesus and by full immersion. In obedience, none refused.

Acts 2.40-42. How were three thousand people in the middle of Jerusalem fully immersed in water?
Acts 8:12-13. How were these men and women fully immersed in water in a city in Samaria?
Acts 8:36-39. The Ethiopian Eunuch could have been immersed or Phillip could have poured water over his head. Nonetheless I’ll give you this one.
Acts 9:17-20. In no way shape or form was Paul fully immersed at his baptism according to these verses. He was in his house when the scales fell from his eyes, “Then he rose and was baptized, and took food and was strengthened”. You’ll notice he rose for his baptism. He didn’t go down into the water like the Ethiopian Eunuch.
Acts 16:14-15. Dosen’t specify.
Acts 16:31-34 No immersion here. They were in the jail, “…and he was baptized at once with his hole family”.
Acts 18:8. They were in the synagogue. Did synagogues have baptismal fonts? I don’t know. Crispus and his whole household believed and were baptized. This dosen’t exclude infants from baptism. When the head of a household decided to follow the Lord, the whole household followed. He didn’t take a poll. Joshua 24:15 “And if you be unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the river, or the gods of the Amorites in the land you now dwell; but as for ME AND MY HOUSE, we will serve the Lord”.In the future, you might want to keep these verses in mind when interpreting scripture. Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God proves true; He is a shield for those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar”.

 

[LegionofMary]

It may not be the intention of this thread to get into the differing views on what ‘baptism’ means, ie, is it an outward act of witnessing to the Christian community that one has expressed his/her belief in Jesus Christ , or does baptism ‘do something’ to the soul, as in Catholic teaching it imparts grace. How one understands baptism is going to be reflected in how they interpret the ‘Biblical evidence’.
Well, folks, I am going to attempt to get some shut eye before having to go to work : ) Sometimes when I can’t sleep I enjoy reading through these forums.

In the hearts of Jesus and Mary

 

[Leon_Miguel]

Mom of one:

Again, he thinks that this proves his case, since there is nothing before that, like from say 40A.D.

Any help would be appreciated.

“And, finally, archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. …Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]”

revneal.org/Writings/aletter.htm

 

[itsjustdave1988]

mumof5:

Funny how the thread dies when biblical evidence is posted (sorry, just echoing what I’ve been accused of in another thread).

The biblical evidence you provided falls short of proving what you want it to prove. We’re still waiting for the rest of it. If you claim infant baptism is invalid, I’m still waiting for you to provide the passage of Scripture which describes infant baptism as invalid. Where’s the example in Scripture where they denied baptism to an infant until he was of a specific age where he made a “choice of Christ?” If you were consistent in your use of Scripture you could provide such a passage. As it appears, the doctrine that infant baptism is invalid is a mere “tradition of men” invented by the Anabaptist movement of the Reformation. They claim to be Bible only Christians but clearly cling to a “tradition of men.” The hypocrisy is striking.

 

[slyboots]

“And these particular posters are from the Church of Christ. They think if it isn’t specificlly commanded in the NT, it is forbidden.”

When I was young, and I was raised CofC, I always wondered how we were supposed to ride in cars, fly in airplanes and watch tv since those were not in the Bible. I
When I asked I was always treated as if I was being a smart aleck. So I never got a good answer.

I think it was Mark Twain who had the best answer to “Do you believe in infant baptism?”
“Believe in it? I’ve seen it!!!”

 

[javelin]

mumof5:

We are told that ‘the household’ is baptised but we are never explicitly told that included infants. Nor are we told it excluded them. The fact is, we don’t know for sure. The household did include servants and those who believed.

Please note WHEN and HOW these people were baptised:
Acts 2:40-42 (Believers at Pentecost)
Acts 8:12-13 (Converts in Samaria)
The Ethiopian Eunuch - Acts 8: 36-39.
Saul of Tarsus - Acts 9: 17-20
Lydia of Thyatira - Acts 16:14-15
Philippian Jailerand Household- Acts 16:31-34
Believers at Corinth - Acts 18:8

** Water baptism took place AFTER a person became a follower of Jesus** and by full immersion. In obedience, none refused.

I just wanted to point out that the pattern for adult baptism in the Catholic Church and most protestant denominations is essentially the same: one comes to belief Jesus is the Messiah, leading to a conviction of one’s own sinfulness, leading to repentance of sin, leading to baptism and initiation into the Church.

The real debate is in what baptism is. What does it do? Once that is figured out, the rest becomes clear, IMHO.

What I honestly don’t understand is why some protestants so staunchly hold to a particularly specific form for baptism (full immersion) when they also hold that baptism *does nothing *-- that it effects no action in the soul. If it is merely symbolic, what, honestly, is the difference between immersion and pouring? After all, the person is already a “believer” and (at least according to some denominations’ theology) assured of eternal life. So, what’s the big deal?

On the other hand, if baptism is a sacrament in that it imparts specific Grace, the form of the sacrament *does *matter. God does not change, and He clearly has certain formal expectations of the Jews for their religious practice, precisely because those practices mean something and more importantly do something. That, I believe, is most consistent with the Catholic understanding of baptism, and in that understanding it makes sense to baptize infants.

What do you think?

Peace,
javelin

 

[Mom_of_one]

NotWorthy:

But our friends, the Church of Christ feel that the Church didn’t go into Apostasy until 275. How can this be if we were already teaching Apostasy in 180? These guys really have to get their “facts” straight.

Notworthy

Please tell me your source for this quote. I want to use it, but unless I read it for myself, I can’t use it. I just looked Justin Martyr in my *Faith of the Early Fathers *series and I can’t find that quote! It’s making me nuts!

 

[Studens]

threadkiller:

Did synagogues have baptismal fonts?

Actually, yes. Sort of.

They have something called a mikveh, which is used for ritual cleansing by immersion. Converts to Judaism are required to be immersed in the mikveh.

Some links on the topic:
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/gloss.html#Mikveh
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Conversion.html
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/conservatives.html (see point #4 under Attitude toward Halacha)
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/geo/Chorazin.html (a page an an ancient synagogue equipped with a mikveh)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh