Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[boppaid]

Not sure where to post this.

A Protestant Pastor I know really well wants me to be baptised as an adult. He knows I was baptized as an infant, but wanted to present me with scripture as to why God commands us to do so as an adult. This baptism would NOT initiate me into his church or his denomination. In fact, it would not even make me a member of his church. Here is the scripture he gave me. I’m not sure what to believe about infant vs believer’s baptism.

Matthew 28:19-29 (New International Version)

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Acts 2:41 (New International Version)
41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Acts 8:12 (New International Version)
12But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:36-38 (New International Version)
36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”[a] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him

Acts 9:18 (New International Version)
18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized

Acts 19:3-5 (New International Version)
3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[a] the name of the Lord Jesus.

He told me that in all the above scriptures, adults were baptized after they believed. Further, the only scripture he could find which would even HINT at an infant baptism was the one where “entire households” were baptised. He said assuming that infants were baptized is quite an assumption. If they came to his house today, there would find 2 adult parents, a 16 year old and a 13 year old. And, other than that HINT of infant baptism, every other instance in scripture points to believer’s baptism.

Could you help me out here?

 

[ricmat]

Since Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, and replaces circumcision (which was the sign of the old covenant) you could refer to this verse:

Colossians 2
11
In him 5 you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.
12
You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

In the old covenant, male infants were brought into the covenant vis circumcision at age 8 days. Why would God make the new covenant “less inclusive” than the old covenant by restricting it to adults? It’s certainly more inclusive in terms of pertaining to females as well.

Also, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.

And St. Hippolytus in “The Aplostolic Tradition” (AD 215) - “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so, otherwise let their parents speak for them.”

 

[SyCarl]

I know there are a couple of basis for infant baptism in Protestantism. One stream, which includes the Lutheran, accepts baptismal regeneration, similar to Roman Catholic doctrine.

There is also the Reformed basis which is based on covenant theology. This may be a simplistic explanation but more can be found from other sources. The covenant theology argument basically boils down to continuity between the old and new covenants. Under the old covenant there was a seal of the covenant (circumsion) and a covenant meal (Passover). The New Covenant also has these, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which replaced the old ones. However the New Testament says nothing that changes who receives the seal of the covenant. The old covenant circumsion was peformed on infants before they could actually believe to mark them as part of the covenant community and to claim the covenant promises for them. Since there is nothing to change this, infants are to be baptized for the same purposes. The New Testament must be read in light of the Old Testament. At Penecost Peter said that the promise was for you and your children. He was speaking to a Jewish audience that knew well the Old Testament and that its sign and seal included infants. The silence as to any change in who was to receive the sign and seal, and the reference to the promise being to their children is the basis of infant baptism.

 

[mercygate]

Tell him that nobody believed in “believer’s baptism” until the Anabaptist heresy arose in the 16th Century. You’re baptized. You accept your baptism. You accept Christ as your savior.

He probably doesn’t believe baptism DOES anything, so what’s the point? And why are you messin’ with this dude anyway? Ask him where he gets his authority to interpret Scripture contrary to the age-old practice of Christians from time immemorial.

 

[Tonks40]

Not sure where to post this.

A Protestant Pastor I know really well wants me to be baptised as an adult. He knows I was baptized as an infant, but wanted to present me with scripture as to why God commands us to do so as an adult. This baptism would NOT initiate me into his church or his denomination. In fact, it would not even make me a member of his church. Here is the scripture he gave me. I’m not sure what to believe about infant vs believer’s baptism.

Matthew 28:19-29 (New International Version)

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Acts 2:41 (New International Version)
41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Acts 8:12 (New International Version)
12But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:36-38 (New International Version)
36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”[a] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him

Acts 9:18 (New International Version)
18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized

Acts 19:3-5 (New International Version)
3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[a] the name of the Lord Jesus.

He told me that in all the above scriptures, adults were baptized after they believed. Further, the only scripture he could find which would even HINT at an infant baptism was the one where “entire households” were baptised. He said assuming that infants were baptized is quite an assumption. If they came to his house today, there would find 2 adult parents, a 16 year old and a 13 year old. And, other than that HINT of infant baptism, every other instance in scripture points to believer’s baptism.

Could you help me out here?

Tell him that thanks, but no thanks; you’re already a member of the Body of Christ by way of your infant baptism. Baptism is a regenerative process, an initiation into the covenant of God through Jesus Christ.

Bible verses? Oh, you may want to give him these:

Mt 10:13-15
“And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.””

Col 2:11-12
“In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”

Luke 18:15-17
"People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”

Notice that in two of the Gospels, Christ’s disciples were rebuked when they objected to people bringing infants to him. Sounds familiar? Ask this pastor where in the Bible does it state “you must be over 18-years-of-age and believe” to be baptized? In my opinion, this pastor’s sociological and historical context is off…unless he gives you DEFINITIVE proof that infant baptism is forbidden in the Bible, it’s only reasonable to conclude that it is not. The Early Church Fathers didn’t think infant baptism was forbidden, either (see St. Hippolytus of Rome, 215 A.D., Coucnil of Carthage, 252 A.D.).

 

[Tonks40]

I know there are a couple of basis for infant baptism in Protestantism. One stream, which includes the Lutheran, accepts baptismal regeneration, similar to Roman Catholic doctrine.

There is also the Reformed basis which is based on covenant theology. This may be a simplistic explanation but more can be found from other sources. The covenant theology argument basically boils down to continuity between the old and new covenants. Under the old covenant there was a seal of the covenant (circumsion) and a covenant meal (Passover). The New Covenant also has these, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which replaced the old ones. However the New Testament says nothing that changes who receives the seal of the covenant. The old covenant circumsion was peformed on infants before they could actually believe to mark them as part of the covenant community and to claim the covenant promises for them. Since there is nothing to change this, infants are to be baptized for the same purposes. The New Testament must be read in light of the Old Testament. At Penecost Peter said that the promise was for you and your children. He was speaking to a Jewish audience that knew well the Old Testament and that its sign and seal included infants. The silence as to any change in who was to receive the sign and seal, and the reference to the promise being to their children is the basis of infant baptism.

Right on!

 

[Tonks40]

Boppaid - one more thing. If you accept his invitation to be re-baptized, it’s kinda saying that you reject your own baptism, and in effect, you separate yourself from Christ. It’s forbidden for a Catholic to participate in worship or ceremonies outside the Catholic faith.

 

[NotWorthy]

Boppaid - one more thing. If you accept his invitation to be re-baptized, it’s kinda saying that you reject your own baptism, and in effect, you separate yourself from Christ. It’s forbidden for a Catholic to participate in worship or ceremonies outside the Catholic faith.

AMEN!!! I had a friend that left the Catholic Church. And he was proudly telling me about how he was re-baptized, only “this time it counted”.

The guy was ripping my heart out as he was telling me that what I believe is false!!!

 

[boppaid]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. This is all very helpful.

Regading the corelation with circumcision, what about this verse…doesn’t it contradict that?:

“Romans 2:29
No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.”

If circumcision is now of the heart, that seems to indicate that it is not an outward act any longer.

 

[SyCarl]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. This is all very helpful.

Regading the corelation with circumcision, what about this verse…doesn’t it contradict that?:

“Romans 2:29
No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.”

If circumcision is now of the heart, that seems to indicate that it is not an outward act any longer.

I don’t have the passages right at hand at the moment but circumsicion of the heart is also mentioned in the Old Testament. It is was a Protestant would call the difference between the visible church, those who have been baptized, and the invisible church, those who have true saving faith.

 

[mercygate]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. This is all very helpful.

Regading the corelation with circumcision, what about this verse…doesn’t it contradict that?:

“Romans 2:29
No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.”

If circumcision is now of the heart, that seems to indicate that it is not an outward act any longer.

No problem. The point is that people were signed into the Covenant at the age of 8 days. The first dispute about infant baptism in the Church was in the second century (if memory serves) and it was over whether baptism could be witheld until the 8th day.

Who says that infant baptism obviates the need for embracing Christ with the powers of faith and reason as we mature.

Pardon my testiness, but this whole matter annoys the daylights out of me.

BTW: you might want to check into the consequences of being baptized “again”: I read a discussion a couple of years ago and the person who had done this, returning home to the Catholic Church, had to petition the Holy See.

 

[boppaid]

No problem. The point is that people were signed into the Covenant at the age of 8 days. The first dispute about infant baptism in the Church was in the second century (if memory serves) and it was over whether baptism could be witheld until the 8th day.

Who says that infant baptism obviates the need for embracing Christ with the powers of faith and reason as we mature.

Pardon my testiness, but this whole matter annoys the daylights out of me.

BTW: you might want to check into the consequences of being baptized “again”: I read a discussion a couple of years ago and the person who had done this, returning home to the Catholic Church, had to petition the Holy See.

Thank you Mercygate. Sorry if my question is annoying to you. Just looking for help.

 

[boppaid]

Also, I’ll try looking up info on “rebaptism” . That is an interesting, and important, thing to know.

Please understand, though, I’m not saying I am going to do this. I actually just need help refuting this scriptural evidence, because it is very compelling.

 

[mercygate]

Thank you Mercygate. Sorry if my question is annoying to you. Just looking for help.

No, no, no. Your question is not annoying to me. The idea that people try to sell believer’s baptism as the ONLY option is annoying. Keep asking questions. How else do you find things out?

 

[mercygate]

Also, I’ll try looking up info on “rebaptism” . That is an interesting, and important, thing to know.

Please understand, though, I’m not saying I am going to do this. I actually just need help refuting this scriptural evidence, because it is very compelling.

Scriptural evidence is “compelling” because in New Testament times, all the converts were of the age of reason.

What about the “compelling” passages that say whole households were baptised? Scripture does not give a clearcut answer on this. This is a key place where we NEED to go by the evidence and practice of the early Church.

 

[Inman]

It’s forbidden for a Catholic to participate in worship or ceremonies outside the Catholic faith.

I guess that depends what you mean by worship or ceremonies. Certainly, a catholic shouldn’t take communion in a non-catholic service, or in this case be baptised. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with attending a protestant service and participating in singing hymns and responsive readings, and listenting to a sermon. Such services just don’t relieve someone of the obligation of attending mass.

That being said, there might practical reasons not to. For example, if you didn’t have a solid understanding of the catholic faith, attending such a service might cause confusion or even lead you astray.

 

[MariaG]

The problem is, Catholics, and the MAJORITY of Protestants agree with this, is that baptism is not just a symbolic act but something God does to you, a miracle in which you are reborn and become a child of God.

We can show you tons of scripture that we interpret as showing baptism to be regenerative.

He can show you scripture that seems otherwise.

Scripture tells us that sometimes scripture itself (specifically writings of Paul) can be hard to understand. You must have good teachers.

So, we need to look at an source other than you pastor, or the Catholic Church since effectively, this is not an issue of am I going to believe scripture or “Traditions of men” but am I going to believe the interpretation of scripture from this pastor or by some other Christians?

If you look at the writings of the early Christians, we can see that there was no dispute about baptizing infants at all. The only disputes were along the lines of, “Do we need to wait until the eighth day as with circumcision” (The answer was resoundingly NO, we don’t have to wait.)

Scripture also tells us that there will be those who come along teaching falsely.

If you look at the history of Christianity, no where was there such a teaching as adult only or believer’s baptism until the 1600’s. All christians before this, Protestant and Catholic alike, practiced infant baptism.

So, do you wish to follow the new interpretation of scritpure which tell us only adults can be baptized, God can’t make a miracle happen and wash us clean of sin in reality, it is only symbolic. Or are you going to follow the historical interpretation of scripture, and the teachings of the Apostles as found in most all Christian Churches and realize that God can wash away the original sin we are born with even in infants?

Also, if you doubt that infants can have faith, we can see in scripture the form that faith takes in babies even in the womb in Luke.

:bible1:Luke 1:41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit

God Bless,
Maria

PS You may wish to read some of these links below. Very SHORT, but informative

Early Teachings on Infant Baptism

Baptismal Grace

Born Again in Baptism

 

[mercygate]

I guess that depends what you mean by worship or ceremonies. Certainly, a catholic shouldn’t take communion in a non-catholic service, or in this case be baptised. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with attending a protestant service and participating in singing hymns and responsive readings, and listenting to a sermon. Such services just don’t relieve someone of the obligation of attending mass.

That being said, there might practical reasons not to. For example, if you didn’t have a solid understanding of the catholic faith, attending such a service might cause confusion or even lead you astray.

. . . as seems to be the case with our brother, Bop.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. This is all very helpful.

Regading the corelation with circumcision, what about this verse…doesn’t it contradict that?:

“Romans 2:29
No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.”

If circumcision is now of the heart, that seems to indicate that it is not an outward act any longer.

Rather than contradict this teaching, Roman affirms it, for it goes right in hand with Ezekiel. What do you think Ezekiel was talking about in chapter 36, and look how it correlates to this circumcision of the heart:

I will sprinkle clean water upon** you to cleanse you from all your impurities**, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees.

Let’s see,

Sprinkle water upon you - as in Baptism
Cleanse you from all your impurites - wipes away our sins
taking from your bodies your stony hearts - circumcision of the heart
*** I will put my Spirit within you*** - You will receive the Holy Spirit.

Yep, I think St. Paul had it all figured out, God Bless him!!!

 

[Zooey]

Doesn’t one of the creeds affirm “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”?
I suspect that this pastor doesn’t believe that baptism does anything, anyhow. (I know that my Baptist relatives & friends think its only a symbol). I have to question his motives for suggesting a “re-baptism”…
Which by the way, “re-baptism” is a contradiction in terms. The only baptism that is such, is when you are initially baptized. Anything else, just amounts to a bath in lukewarm water.
But he seems, IMHO, to want to get you somehow involved with his church…instead of your own. My advice is to:thumbsup: let him go on wanting…
God bless.