Infant v Adult Baptism

[brianwalden]

The way to explain this to non-denominational folk (and other non-sacramental types) is to have them understand all the rites of initiation. They will recognize our sacrament of confirmation as being similar to their ordinance of baptism.

Except that a personal acceptance of the faith is not strictly required for confirmation as evidenced by the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches who validly confer confirmation on infants. Everything else you said I agree with.

 

[Adamski]

Here is the best biblical defense
Baptism takes the place of circumcision
Profession of faith in confirmation that takes the place of bar mizfah

Colossians 2:11-13
New International Version (NIV)
11In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[a] was put off when you were circumcised by** Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

13*When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,**

 

[PatriciusRex]

Anna Scott,

Pinning down what exactly is taught by the Church of England at any given time is always a momentous task, not least from the very beginning. Even Cranmer seems to have changed his mind several times during his tenure on the Chair of St Augustine.

I have many Anglican/Episcopal acquaintances, and depending on which one I talk to and on which issue, I can get all sorts of answers ranging from basically Catholic to full-on Reformed Calvinist interpretations of various doctrines. All appeal to the Book of Common Prayer and the Catechism as supporting their positions in one form or other.

Given that Cranmer, especially during Edward VI’s reign, came strongly under the influence of Continental ideas of Genevan flavor and that the Elizabethan church was known for it’s “Calvinist consensus” (as Patrick Collinson tells us) it’s safe to assume that a Calvinistic “covenant theology” interpretation of baptism was taught as authoritative for most of the first century of the CoE. Even with the rise of Arminianism and sacramentalism in the mid 17th century, Wesley still had to routinely defend his non Calvinist views in the late 18th century.

You might be a better judge than me as to how widespread these notions remain, but in many ways I see the CofE and the rest of the Communion as still generally in the “Reformed” branch of Christianity. Note that by this I don’t mean the members actually believe or practice accordingly, (indeed I’ve never met so many vocally declared free willers as at the local congregation of Presbyterian Church USA) but the framework remains, even if only to be privately defied.

On this particular question, someone wrote a blurb on the wikipedia for Baptismal regeneration about the problems in defining an “Anglican” position: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration#Differing_Anglican_attitudes

The argument doesn’t imply anything that’s not true, rather certain protestants infer things that aren’t true from the argument. There’s a big difference.

P.S. Just a rhetorical question on my part - How are we supposed to do apologetics with those who ask us to make our points with both hands tied behind our backs? I’ll make a case from scripture alone if needed, but from only their misguided interpretation of scripture - that’s a tall task. But I guess it must be done if that’s the only way someone will be convinced of the truth.

Yeah and that’s why I don’t like using that example. As I told Rinnie in an earlier post, when discussing these things outside of mixed company it’s fine and indeed makes sense, but throwing it out to someone who’s already convinced himself he’s a “New Testament believer” (an incredibly loaded term that means anything he disagrees with will be called “legalism”/“judaizing” etc), bringing up any associations with Mosaic law is just asking for trouble.

And yes, I agree with your sentiments entirely. Like the whole having to prove things from Scripture argument of course is silly to a Catholic since we understand the historical nature of Scripture and its relation to the authority of the Church. So “proving it out of Scripture” is sort of the wrong battleground entirely. It’s like if I make a race car that accelerate 0-500 in 2 seconds, but can’t maneuver at all, then insist that your normal car can only race me on a straight track…

But telling an Evangelical that it’s rather they who must prove Sola Scriptura than we who must prove Catholicism out of the Bible, just sounds like a cheap cop-out to them. They can then leave smugly thinking, “See? That Papist was forced to admit that he couldn’t prove his man-made traditions out the Bible.”

So far I just try to have a scriptural answer for them on everything. If nothing else, it at least demonstrates to them how different verses can easily support different things, which will hopefully make them see what an unsteady foundation Sola Scriptura really is.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

As an Anglican I believe in the sacraments and that baptism should be adminstered to infants. It is a means of grace by which we are united to Christ and part partakers of His life. Not an act of obedience.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna Scott,

Pinning down what exactly is taught by the Church of England at any given time is always a momentous task, not least from the very beginning. Even Cranmer seems to have changed his mind several times during his tenure on the Chair of St Augustine.

I have many Anglican/Episcopal acquaintances, and depending on which one I talk to and on which issue, I can get all sorts of answers ranging from basically Catholic to full-on Reformed Calvinist interpretations of various doctrines. All appeal to the Book of Common Prayer and the Catechism as supporting their positions in one form or other.

Given that Cranmer, especially during Edward VI’s reign, came strongly under the influence of Continental ideas of Genevan flavor and that the Elizabethan church was known for it’s “Calvinist consensus” (as Patrick Collinson tells us) it’s safe to assume that a Calvinistic “covenant theology” interpretation of baptism was taught as authoritative for most of the first century of the CoE. Even with the rise of Arminianism and sacramentalism in the mid 17th century, Wesley still had to routinely defend his non Calvinist views in the late 18th century.

You might be a better judge than me as to how widespread these notions remain, but in many ways I see the CofE and the rest of the Communion as still generally in the “Reformed” branch of Christianity. Note that by this I don’t mean the members actually believe or practice accordingly, (indeed I’ve never met so many vocally declared free willers as at the local congregation of Presbyterian Church USA) but the framework remains, even if only to be privately defied.

On this particular question, someone wrote a blurb on the wikipedia for Baptismal regeneration about the problems in defining an “Anglican” position: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration#Differing_Anglican_attitudes
. . . .

PatriciusRex,

You’ve got a lot of assumptions going on in that post.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. John received the Holy Spirit in the womb of Elizabeth. Best case for infant baptism.

 

[jerry_joseph]

I am having a conversation with a non-denominational believer on the validity of infant baptism. This is an area where I’m probably not as strong in knowledge as I should be, and I’ve reached the point where I don’t know where to go next. I sent him some verses from scripture that support infant baptism, including Acts 2:38-29 (as well as Acts 16 and 1 Cor). In response, he sent me a link to this article:

wordofhisgrace.org/acts2_39.htm

Can someone help me refute what the writer is saying?

I should also mention that when I mentioned baptism being foreshadowed by circumcision, he said that he is a New Testament believer…whatever that means.

I appreciate any help! Thanks!

Bible does not says that dont give baptism to children. Bible does not prohibit it. Here pentecostals argues that how a child could be baptised in spirit?.. Bible clearly says examples about that.

“He will be filled with holy spirit even from his mother’s womb. Through him many of the people of Israel will turn to the Lord their God.”(Luke 1:15)

“But one day God called me out of his great love, he who had chosen me from my mother’s womb; and he was pleased” (Galathians 1:15)

“Even before I formed you in the womb I have known you; even before you were born I had set you apart, and appointed you a prophet to the nations!” Jeremiah 1:5

Its clear that there is no age bar for recieving holy spirit. Is all these persons where filled with spirit only at their youth time ?. No they recieved only spirit before they where born . When they where in their mother’s womb.

Another argument of pentecostals is that one should be baptised only when they have faith. So it is not biblical that one can baptised during their child hood. Let us see what bible tells in this matter.

There are lot of examples in bible that a person recieves lords mercy due to other’s faith.

'When Jesus saw the faith of these people, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.” Mark 2:5

“Due to the faith of army captain , jesus cured his servant” (Matthew 8:5-13)

“Jesus cures an epileptic man due to the faith of his father” (Matthew 17:15)

Again what did peter says about baptism "Peter answered: “Each of you must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise of God was made to you and your children, and to all those from afar whom our God may call.” (Acts 2:38-39)…

Did he says that everybody except chidren will get holy spirit??. Why children is also included??. Remember this verse is relating to baptism…

Apostle paul (Colosian 2:11) says baptism is circumcision in spirit. We all know that Jews does circumsion of their babies on the eight day after birth …

In the book 1 Corintians 10:2, apostle mentions that the baptism from the sea , when israelies crossed red sea, is fore runner of christian baptism… Here one question arises, is children among them are exempted from that baptism??. Then why children are not eligible to receive christian baptism???.

"Then they spoke the word of God to him and to all his household. Even at that hour of the night, the jailer took care of them and washed their wounds; and he and his whole household were baptized at once."Acts16:33-34…

Here it is clearly mentions that whole house hold is baptized?.. Is it mentioned that adult members in the family are baptised and children are exempted???. NO…

Another example for whole house hold is baptized…" After she had been baptized together with her household, she invited us to her house, “If you think I am faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us to accept her invitation. (Acts16 : 14-15)…

So it is clear that children is not exempted from baptism. Also remember the words of jesus " Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it." Mark 10:15

 

[JonNC]

1979 U.S. Book of Common Prayer

Holy Baptism 299, Concerning the Service:

“Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into
Christ’s Body the Church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism
is indissoluble.”

An Outline of Faith, or Catechism 845, Holy Baptism

Q. What is Holy Baptism?
A. Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ’s Body, the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God.

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in Baptism?
A. The outward and visible sign in Baptism is water, in which the person is baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace in Baptism?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in Baptism is union with Christ in his death and resurrection, birth into God’s family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit.

Q. What is required of us at Baptism?
A. It is required that we renounce Satan, repent of our sins, and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

Q. Why then are infants baptized?
A. Infants are baptized so that they can share citizenship in the Covenant, membership in Christ, and redemption by God.

Q. How are the promises for infants made and carried out?
A. Promises are made for them by their parents and sponsors, who guarantee that the infants will be brought up within the Church, to know Christ and be able to follow him.

Similarly, Anna, from Luther’s Small Catechism

IV. The Sacrament of Holy Baptism

As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

First.

What is Baptism?–Answer.

Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s Word.

Which is that word of God?–Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Secondly.

What does Baptism give or profit?–Answer.

It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Which are such words and promises of God? Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Thirdly.

How can water do such great things?–Answer.

It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

Fourthly.
What does such baptizing with water signify?–Answer.

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Where is this written?–Answer.

St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

And the Augsburg Confession

Article IX: Of Baptism.

1] Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.

3] They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

Jon

 

[gazelam]

Latter-day Saints do not practice infant baptism per these verses from the Book of Mormon…

Mormon 8:8
Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

Moroni 8:11-13
11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.