Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter boppaid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
nonsumd said:
Phil, arguing infant baptism vs. believer’s baptism with you is futile since, as I believe it was Grace Seeker who remarked, traditional Christianity and your innovative Christianity have different ideas about what baptism is supposed to accomplish.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that you might have recalled my post. However, I don’t believe I would have used the term “innovative” to describe Phil’s views with regard to baptism. They are different than yours or mine, and I do not think they were the original understanding. But Phil and many others do think they were original; they are not trying to be innovative but to conserve their best understanding of the old ways. Despite my own personal views to the contrary, I must admit that I also just don’t see enough objective information to categorically deny their assertions as a possibility. Therefore, I think I would prefer to use a more neutral term than “innovative” to describing the prefence that some have for adult believers’ baptism.
 
I think it is fairly simple: We are baptized as infants because Jesus said to bring all people to him and especially the little ones.
Jesus Himself was baptised by John, if Jesus did it then we most certainly should be doing it.
 
Grace_Seeker said:
I appreciate that you might have recalled my post. However, I don’t believe I would have used the term “innovative” to describe Phil’s views with regard to baptism. They are different than yours or mine, and I do not think they were the original understanding. But Phil and many others do think they were original; they are not trying to be innovative but to conserve their best understanding of the old ways. Despite my own personal views to the contrary, I must admit that I also just don’t see enough objective information to categorically deny their assertions as a possibility. Therefore, I think I would prefer to use a more neutral term than “innovative” to describing the prefence that some have for adult believers’ baptism.
Click to expand...
Grace Seeker, I did not mean to impute to you rhetoric that you did not use.

I appreciate your eirenic voice reminding us of how those with whom we disagree see themselves.

Nonetheless, I believe that objectively we can say that Sola Scriptura Protestants’ doctrines with which we Catholics do not agree are “innovative” because what SSP’s claim to be the method by which they arrive at those doctrines, “Sola Scriptura” itself, is an innovation of the 16th c. (and one that would have been unlikely to have emerged before the invention of the printing press – before that point all societies, even ones that possessed literate elites, were overwhelmingly oral and thus relied on teaching authorities informed by oral tradition).

Nowhere in the Bible itself can we find a teaching that “Scripture is the only source of religious truth” or “only what can be explicitly and unequivocally derived from Scripture is to believed.” On the other hand, the Bible does speak of the importance of oral traditions and of teaching authorities.

In any case, what I perceive is that those who argue vociferously against the validity of infant baptism are not merely “expressing a preference” for adult baptism as if the two things were flavors of ice cream.
 
nonsumd said:
Grace Seeker,

I appreciate your eirenic voice reminding us of how those with whom we disagree see themselves.

…In any case, what I perceive is that those who argue vociferously against the validity of infant baptism are not merely “expressing a preference” for adult baptism as if the two things were flavors of ice cream.
Click to expand...
Great, now I have to look up the word, “Eirenic” to see what it means. You’re not slamming Grace Seeker are you? 🙂

I’ve already had enough trouble with vociferously. 😉
 
nonsumd said:
Grace Seeker, I did not mean to impute to you rhetoric that you did not use.

I appreciate your eirenic voice reminding us of how those with whom we disagree see themselves.

Nonetheless, I believe that objectively we can say that Sola Scriptura Protestants’ doctrines with which we Catholics do not agree are “innovative” because what SSP’s claim to be the method by which they arrive at those doctrines, “Sola Scriptura” itself, is an innovation of the 16th c. (and one that would have been unlikely to have emerged before the invention of the printing press – before that point all societies, even ones that possessed literate elites, were overwhelmingly oral and thus relied on teaching authorities informed by oral tradition).

Nowhere in the Bible itself can we find a teaching that “Scripture is the only source of religious truth” or “only what can be explicitly and unequivocally derived from Scripture is to believed.” On the other hand, the Bible does speak of the importance of oral traditions and of teaching authorities.

In any case, what I perceive is that those who argue vociferously against the validity of infant baptism are not merely “expressing a preference” for adult baptism as if the two things were flavors of ice cream.
Click to expand...
I think we can say those things which you have said subjectively. (Indeed, I take your point that this is not a discussion about one’s preferred flavor of ice cream as being “most certainly true” – if I can steal a line from Luther in support of what you have said.) Still, I find relatively little in the area of religious discussions that can be said objectively. For instance, while I hold to certain truths as indeed being true and having certain historical realities behind them, I find that there are others who even dispute the historicity of Jesus’ very existence and claim that not only my interpretation of Jesus’ life, but even holding to the very idea that there was an actual crucifixion to be something they are not willing to concede as truly happening.

Well, if even the life and crucifixion of Jesus is something that we cannot get universal agreement to be an objective historical fact – and, sadly, it isn’t. Then it is hard for me to categorically state that the interpretations that any one of us might suggest as arising out of the record (be it oral or written) are objective truths. Of course, this has little to do with the debate between Infant vs. Believer’s baptism other than that I think it affirms this debate will not be resolved by someone “conclusively” presenting evidence. As long as this is how we approach the material, the other is always free to simply deny our reality as even being true. We are going to have to learn to see things through other people’s eyes and to help them to see things through ours, and I believe that is achieved more from winning a relationship than winning a debate.
 
NotWorthy said:
Great, now I have to look up the word, “Eirenic” to see what it means. You’re not slamming Grace Seeker are you? 🙂

I’ve already had enough trouble with vociferously. 😉
Click to expand...
Thank-you for such a vociferously worded apologia on my behalf. However, rest easy, nonsumd was not unleashing some paroxysmic verbal impugnment on me. Indeed his words were rather peaceable.
 
<<Acts 2:41 (New International Version)
41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.>>

He conveniently ignored what St. Peter said a couple of verses before: “For this promise is to you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN…”

What promise? The promises of the gift of the Holy Spirit conferred in Baptism (“Repent and be baptized …”)

Furthermore 1 Corinthians 10:1 ff says that they were “ALL were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea…” and verse 6 says, “These things are for our examples.”

Did the Hebrews wait until their little ones “had faith and came to believe” before they carried them through Moses’s baptism in the Red (or Reed) Sea? What do you think would have happened had they done so? They would have been chopped up under the chariot wheels, or at best carried back as slaves into Egypt.

NO! The infants and youngsters were carried under the authority of their parent’s faith.

(Note also they ALL “ate the same spiritual food, and drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from the Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” Do you think these Jewish mothers would let their children decide for themselves if they wanted to eat manna? No way! Doesn’t this sound like justification for infant communion to you? It does to me.)

Consider the antecedent in circumcision by which male children were brought into the covenant. Now is there LESS grace or MORE grace since the coming of Christ?

Furthermore, infant baptism was not something thought up by that nasty ole pope feller. The Rite of Mikveh (ritual immersion) is still used by Jews as part of converting to Judaism, and this must be done even for a gentile infant of either sex who is adopted by Jewish parents who intend to raise him as a Jew.

Finally, remember that offspring were so strictly under parental authority that marriages were arranged for them while still young children. Do you actually think that these same parents who decided who their children would marry would wait until they could “decide and have faith” for themselves to be baptized?

HA!

Hope this helps.
 
Grace_Seeker said:
We are going to have to learn to see things through other people’s eyes and to help them to see things through ours, and I believe that is achieved more from winning a relationship than winning a debate.
Click to expand...
I find your language (“winning a relationship”) here quite interesting.

These past two summers I have been doing a bible study with two fellow professors and their husbands. I am the only Catholic, the others range from Unitarian to almost Orthodox - and that’s just one of the four!

Among us, there was one life-long Baptist (though he happens to work in a Methodist parish now) so the issue of infant baptism vs. adult baptism did come up, but we did not debate each other, we simply talked about the difference almost as one would talk about two sides of the same coin: the process of appropriating the faith is something that precedes baptism for some of us, something that follows it for the rest of us.

The five of us were already in a relationship, as good friends and colleagues, so the question for us was how to discuss doctrinal differences honestly without losing the relationship we already had. It also helps that in a secular university with many non-Christian and ex-Christian colleagues we see our commonalities as Christian believers more starkly than we might otherwise.

I guess the best thing (though not easy) is to enter debates with the “talking heads” we encounter on the net with the idea that we are already have a relationship with them - the one we have as followers of Jesus and as children of God.
 
nonsumd said:
I find your language (“winning a relationship”) here quite interesting.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is rather interesting. I chose it to juxtapose the idea of debates, which are so often about “winning” rather than “learning”, with having a sustainable relationship with others in Christ. (Of course, I don’t practice that myself very well, when it comes to the threads about there being just one Church and it is the Catholic church exclusive of all others.)
I guess the best thing (though not easy) is to enter debates with the “talking heads” we encounter on the net with the idea that we are already have a relationship with them - the one we have as followers of Jesus and as children of God.
Click to expand...
If only we could all see what you have seen and learn to follow that model.
 
These passages he speaks to are about the baptizing of Jews and gentiles who were some grown adults and possibly others infants and children. It is morally and theologically correct to baptise infants into the Catholic church and any other church, unfortunately protestants observe Martin Luthers rewritings of the Neuwenberg bible that was published in the late 1480’s. Luther was and is a terrible heretic who has been the cause of countless people not finding salvation due to his lies and hatred for the Catholic church. Your parents baptised you in good faith and as long as you observe the sacraments and teachings of the Catholic church then your baptism is valid because of your faith through your practice.
God Bless!
 
Grace_Seeker said:
Thank-you for such a vociferously worded apologia on my behalf. However, rest easy, nonsumd was not unleashing some paroxysmic verbal impugnment on me. Indeed his words were rather peaceable.
Click to expand...
Uhhhhhhhhh, yeah.

Now my head hurts. I better not be having one of the paroxyismismisms.
 
NotWorthy said:
Great, now I have to look up the word, “Eirenic” to see what it means. You’re not slamming Grace Seeker are you? 🙂

I’ve already had enough trouble with vociferously. 😉
Click to expand...
**My dictionary did not have “eirenic” so perhaps that was a typo for the word “irenic” which is indeed in my dictionary.

Getting back to the subject of this thread, consider these verses:
**

**Acts 8:
5. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them.
6. And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
7. For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed; and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed.
8. And there was great joy in that city.
9. But there was a certain man called Simon, who previously practiced sorcery in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great,
10. to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, "This man is the great power of God.’’
11. And they heeded him because he had astonished them with his sorceries for a long time.
12. But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
13. Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.
14. Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,
15. who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. **

Two things I would like to note: (1) only those who believed were baptized, and (2) they did not receive the Holy Spirit by being baptized.
 
Phil, where does it say they denied infants baptism? Hasn’t that been your claim the whole time? No one here has denied that an adult needs to believe before baptism.

I’ll address your second point (which is very good) shortly.
 
Sorry about that. I was watching a movie with my wife. “Put down that stupid computer, John, and watch the movie already!!!”

Phil, what you’ve described is Confirmation, where we are sealed with the Holy Spirit. It is strictly given to adults who have reached the age of reason. Actually, it’s most commonly done at the same time as Baptism when baptizing an adult. Infants, of course, do not receive confirmation at their baptism.

Anyway, you’ll find a reference to confirmation in the verse you showed, as well as Hebrews 6:1-2
“Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” (Heb. 6:1–2).
Click to expand...
Here are a couple of early references to confirmation:
Theophilus of Antioch

“Are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? It is on this account that we are called Christians: because we are anointed with the oil of God” (*To Autolycus *1:12 [A.D. 181]).
Tertullian

“After coming from the place of washing we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction, from the ancient discipline by which [those] in the priesthood . . . were accustomed to be anointed with a horn of oil, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. . . . So also with us, the unction runs on the body and profits us spiritually, in the same way that baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. After this, the hand is imposed for a blessing, invoking and inviting the Holy Spirit” (Baptism 7:1–2, 8:1 [A.D. 203]).
Click to expand...
“No soul whatever is able to obtain salvation unless it has believed while it was in the flesh. Indeed, the flesh is the hinge of salvation. . . . The flesh, then, is washed [baptism] so that the soul may be made clean. The flesh is anointed so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed so that the soul may be fortified. The flesh is shaded by the imposition of hands [confirmation] so that the soul may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ [the Eucharist] so that the soul too may feed on God. They cannot, then, be separated in their reward, when they are united in their works” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8:2–3 [A.D. 210]).
Click to expand...
 
Phil12123 said:
My dictionary did not have “eirenic” so perhaps that was a typo for the word “irenic” which is indeed in my dictionary.

Google “eirenic” and you will see in on-line dictionaries that “irenic” is an alternative spelling to it.

The word, like the name “Irene,” comes from the Greek word eirene, “peace.” I personally have seen “eirenic” more often than “irenic” in print and do prefer a more etymological spelling that avoids associations with the name “Irene.”

Nonetheless, I do enjoy the “irenic”’/“ironic” pun! 👍
Click to expand...
 
Back to the subject…

The Orthodox baptize, confirm, and give first Communion at the same time – to infants (the priest puts a tiny morsel of the bread dipped in wine in the baby’s mouth). They still recognize three distinct sacraments are being administered (this is what generally happens these days with adult catachumens in the Catholic Church – 38 years ago, however, as an infant, I was baptized a Catholicand confirmed, though at separate ceremonies).

According to what I have read, Orthodoxy prefers to understand sin, particularly the “ancestral” (= “Original”) sin, in terms of disease (sin is likened to a disease). Such an emphasis reminds us of how powerful sin is and how pervasive and unforeseen can be its consequences. It also points to the idea that sin effects the body-soul union that is the human being, hence the need to infuse sacramentally in infants. It is connected to the idea so beautifully expressed in Orthodox hymns that Christ’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection initiates a “New Creation” – that He regenerates the world, the physical world, and not just human souls.

Catholicism is not and should not be reducible to certain Augustinian emphases (neither can Augustine’s thought himself be reduced to the certain propositions considered “Augustinian”). Orthodox perspectives help us Catholics realize again the true richness of our own theological heritage which is broader still than even that of the most comprehensive and brilliant theologian.
 
The “Sin is a disease” angle is interesting. Sin was often related to disease in the OT (our illnesses were a result of our past sins). And Jesus certainly linked the two when He’d cure someone of their illness after forgiving their sins.

The Church teaches that when one member of the Body sins, it affects the rest of the body, as a disease often does.

I’ve never dwelt too much on this analysis, other than the OT link between sin and disease.:hmmm:
 
I think this is a good thread, everybody is learning something here, at least I hope. This good learning can only go so far though, when protestants are arguing points based upon false doctrine created by Martin Luther, who anybody can lookup in history and see what a bloodthirsty despot he was, Catholics need to move on. You cannot help anybody see truth when they are totally blinded by lies and deception that belong to someone else. It is not protestants fault for what they believe, their parents taught them and so on, they operate under the false guise that a reformation was needed, not so, well unless you consider Satans perspective it was a great windfall of souls for him, nonetheless the reformation was a victory for Hell and one of it’s top lieutenants-Martin Luther. I am a Catholic because we the church has everything-all the sacrements, saints, devotion to the blessed virgin Mary, who is our real mother and countless other traditions. The Church stood as the only bastion of Christ on earth for some 1500 odd years, and still is the same in all its teachings today. Christ stated that he would be with the church forever and always. He did not say he would be with 50,000 different christian churches forever and always. It was only the one true church-the Catholic church. I don’t hate protestants, but I won’t come into collusion with any either. The Holy father and many of his predecessors have ruled on this issue, so I will not agree to any other “ideas” about baptism that does not comply with church teaching. I mean no offense but since I am Catholic I might as well be Catholic as I can and embrace all truths that Christ has bestowed upon us through Mother Church.
 
But fiery, do you think Phil is the only person with this question? There are others reading this thread who haven’t posted (as several have PM’d me). If any of them reading this can come to a fuller understanding of the Catholic Faith, then I’ll stay here till I’m blue in the face!

P.S. Currently, I’m just a shade lighter than periwinkle 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top