Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[NotWorthy]

Good first point. BUT it wasn’t DOCTRINE until the 1950’s. That is why I put it on this thread. To show that even though something may be ‘new’ (as you claim non-infant baptism to be) doesn’t mean it’s less valid.

No, there is a difference.
The Assumption - taught since the early years. Made formal dogma in 1950.

Revoking of Infant Baptism - Contrary to all earlier teaching. Invented with no precedence within last 2-300 years.

So be it, but at least the person who was baptised as a conscience and full decision and declaration would know the consequence of it. I think the baptism means more when YOU made the decision…

So be it. The difference is I’ll accept your practice. Will you accept mine?!

 

[Singinbeauty]

No, there is a difference.
The Assumption - taught since the early years. Made formal dogma in 1950.

Revoking of Infant Baptism - Contrary to all earlier teaching. Invented with no precedence within last 2-300 years.
So be it. The difference is I’ll accept your practice. Will you accept mine?!

Sure, I may not agree with it but it doesn’t mean it ain’t valid. I am just saying what doesn’t sit right with me. But I ain’t God so who am I to say?

 

[jmcrae]

I agree. But being baptized as a baby is imposing the decision to follow Christ on someone who may not even grow to want to. Baptism, as I have learned it, is about the profession of Faith of which a baby can’t make that decision.

See Luke 1:44.

 

[Singinbeauty]

See Luke 1:44.

Whaddyahuh???

44 When I heard your greeting, the baby in my womb jumped for joy.

A little confused on what this has to do with baptism…

 

[jmcrae]

Whaddyahuh???

A little confused on what this has to do with baptism…

The unborn infant John jumped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when the mother of Jesus, together of course with Jesus Himself in her womb, walked into his presence.

Ask yourself: why did he jump for joy?

Was he about to receive a new toy? (all chorus NO.)

Were they about to give him a lolly? (all chorus NO.)

Did he maybe have faith in Jesus? (all chorus YES.)

Extrapolate: Can infants have faith? (all chorus YES.)

 

[Singinbeauty]

The unborn infant John jumped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when the mother of Jesus, together of course with Jesus Himself in her womb, walked into his presence.

Ask yourself: why did he jump for joy?

Was he about to receive a new toy? (all chorus NO.)

Were they about to give him a lolly? (all chorus NO.)

Did he maybe have faith in Jesus? (all chorus YES.)

Extrapolate: Can infants have faith? (all chorus YES.)

I am not sure if he had Faith in Jesus but that he knew that Christ was near. So my ‘yes’ is not with the last two.

 

[Phil12123]

My first point is that the thread is not about the Assumption of Mary, something that has been taught for at least 1500 years.

Did any of the Apostles teach it? When was it first taught and by whom? One book I have mentions the year 819, nearly 8 centuries after the Apostles, as the year of the first observance of the Feast of the Assumption. The Assumption was not made an Article of Faith until 1950.

The point of baptizing someone who doesn’t even know Christ and may eventually grow up to reject Him is that the OT Scriptures prophecied it, Jesus taught it, the Apostles practiced it, and the Church took part in the Sacred Tradition, from the very first century.

**The OT Scriptures prophecied what? That people who don’t even know Christ would be baptized and grow up to reject Him?

Wrong. Jesus NEVER taught that someone who doesn’t even know Him and may eventually grow up to reject Him, should be baptized. He never taught that infants should be baptized. NEVER.

There is NO EVIDENCE that the Apostles practiced infant baptism. There is not one verse of Scripture that shows unequivocally that any infant was ever baptized by an Apostle. NOT ONE.**

But, following your line of logic, what’s the point of baptizing **anyone **who may eventually reject Christ? Then the Baptism was all for nothing.

The only point in baptizing anyone is to be obedient to Christ and His command to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM… and teaching THEM. Only those who hear the Gospel message, repent of sin, and believe in Jesus, were to be baptized. Whether they later make another decision to cast off that belief is irrelevant to obeying Christ’s command in the first instance. But that command did not include baptizing nonbelievers, such as infants, with the hope that eventually they might become believers.

 

[NotWorthy]

I am not sure if he had Faith in Jesus but that he knew that Christ was near. So my ‘yes’ is not with the last two.

But he was “filled with the holy Spirit”. That’s one of the things Baptism does with us. So what does it say about infant baptism?

 

[jmcrae]

I am not sure if he had Faith in Jesus but that he knew that Christ was near. So my ‘yes’ is not with the last two.

How would he know that Christ was near, and how would that fact cause him to jump for joy, unless he had faith in Christ?

 

[Singinbeauty]

But he was “filled with the holy Spirit”. That’s one of the things Baptism does with us. So what does it say about infant baptism?

Where does it say that he was filled with the holy spirit? It says that Elizabeth was filled with the HS but doesn’t say anything about the baby.

 

[Singinbeauty]

How would he know that Christ was near, and how would that fact cause him to jump for joy, unless he had faith in Christ?

I think our souls do know that Christ is near because we are made by God Almighty.

 

[jmcrae]

Did any of the Apostles teach it? When was it first taught and by whom? One book I have mentions the year 819, nearly 8 centuries after the Apostles, as the year of the first observance of the Feast of the Assumption. The Assumption was not made an Article of Faith until 1950.

The Church didn’t start celebrating Christmas until several centuries after the beginnings of the Chuch, either, but it doesn’t mean that the Nativity never happened, or that the Apostles didn’t believe in the Nativity.

As far as I know, the Nativity has never been declared Dogma, either, but I don’t know of any Catholic, or even any Christian other than perhaps Bishop Spong and his followers, who doubt this teaching.

 

[jmcrae]

I think our souls do know that Christ is near because we are made by God Almighty.

So you think that someone who doesn’t know Christ would jump for joy when He came near? Yet the New Testament records that those who encountered him who didn’t have faith in Him hated Him, and even crucified Him.

Further, St. Paul teaches us that it is only by faith that we can say that Jesus is Lord. So, the fact that St. John recognized Jesus and jumped for joy in His presence tells us that he must have had faith in Him.

 

[NotWorthy]

Where does it say that he was filled with the holy spirit? It says that Elizabeth was filled with the HS but doesn’t say anything about the baby.

Gabriel told Zechariah in chapter 1 of Luke that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit, even while in the womb (paraphrasing). It’s not too much of a stretch to assume that this moment is when John is filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[japhy]

Gabriel told Zechariah in chapter 1 of Luke that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit, even while in the womb (paraphrasing). It’s not too much of a stretch to assume that this moment is when John is filled with the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:13-15: But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth; for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”

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.

 

[Phil12123]

Where does it say that he was filled with the holy spirit? It says that Elizabeth was filled with the HS but doesn’t say anything about the baby.

Luke 1:15 says the angel of the Lord told Zacharias that he would have a son (John) who would "be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb."

NotWorthy:

But he was “filled with the holy Spirit”. That’s one of the things Baptism does with us. So what does it say about infant baptism?

jmcrae:

The unborn infant John jumped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when the mother of Jesus, together of course with Jesus Himself in her womb, walked into his presence.

Ask yourself: why did he jump for joy?

Was he about to receive a new toy? (all chorus NO.)

Were they about to give him a lolly? (all chorus NO.)

Did he maybe have faith in Jesus? (all chorus YES.)

Extrapolate: Can infants have faith? (all chorus YES.)

**But what conclusions can you make from that extraordinary person and situation? That all infants in their mothers’ wombs are also “filled with the Holy Spirit” and that all infants in their mothers’ wombs have faith? The way you believe is that baptism gives a baby the Holy Spirit, right? If so, and if all babies are filled with the Holy Spirit from their mothers’ wombs, they wouldn’t need baptism, since they already have the Holy Spirit, right?

Be reasonable. Ordinarily NO infant has faith—any faith. And if you disagree, what faith could an infant have? And in what? Does it have faith in Jesus? That he, the infant, is a sinner and needs Jesus as Savior? That Jesus died on the cross for … what? His sins? It doesn’t have any sin to repent of, so what could its faith in Jesus be for?**

 

[NotWorthy]

---

But what conclusions can you make from that extraordinary person and situation? That all infants in their mothers’ wombs are also “filled with the Holy Spirit” and that all infants in their mothers’ wombs have faith? The way you believe is that baptism gives a baby the Holy Spirit, right? If so, and if all babies are filled with the Holy Spirit from their mothers’ wombs, they wouldn’t need baptism, since they already have the Holy Spirit, right?No, I didn’t jump to these conclusions. My (attempt at) logic is that John proves that our souls are capable of being infused with the Holy Spirit, and that we can get a benefit from it, even from the womb.

Hence, it’s not a “theological leap of faith” to realize that infants at 8 days old can receive the Holy Spirit as they do at Baptism.

Be reasonable.

No, ordinarily an infant will not have this kind of faith, I can be a reasonable guy after all, but our souls are stained with Original Sin, and Baptism washes this away. Also, it brings infant into the New Covenant. Granted, it is ultimately up to the child’s faith when they grow up to remain in the Covenant, but until then, I"m going to do the best for my children that I can, Spiritually and Morally.

 

[Phil12123]

St. Paul teaches us that it is only by faith that we can say that Jesus is Lord. So, the fact that St. John recognized Jesus and jumped for joy in His presence tells us that he must have had faith in Him.

If you are referring to 1 Cor. 12:3b ("…no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit"), it doesn’t mention “faith” at all. It is talking about speech, which John in the womb did not have nor use. So your logic was faulty in both the premise and the conclusion. More importantly, no universal conclusion can be drawn from John the Baptist that applies to infants today. 8-day-old infants are simply not suitable candidates for baptism because they are not and cannot be “disciples” or “believers” at that time. So, Christ did not command that they be baptized.

 

[Phil12123]

Baptism isn’t really about the baptized person’s faith. It is about God’s action. God, not the baptizee is the actor in the event. So, the only promises that matter are the promises of God. And the profession of faith that matters is the profession made by the assembled community of faith that they continue to place their faith in the God of these promises who has effected them to be true in their lives.

What in Scripture leads you to make the above statements? In my view (which I think is the biblical view), baptism is ALL about the baptized person’s faith, because it is that which identifies him with the other believers and their community of faith. It marks the person as a believer and a part of the New Covenant, just as circumcision marked the male as a Jew and member of the Old Covenant. In the latter case, he need only be 8 days old, but in the former he had to be a believer to be a part of the New Covenant. Frankly, the faith of the assembled community was irrelevant, except in so far as the baptized person was being identified with them and their faith. It was primarily the baptized person’s testimony to the world (believer and nonbeliever alike) that he was identifying himself with the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ, saying, "Jesus is Lord. Jesus is my Lord."

 

[bpbasilphx]

Grace Seeker said:

<>

Very well, then, Grace Seeker. Please tell us EXACTLY where the Bible says that it contains every detail of every ritual that Christians must follow, as you claim it does.

Please tell us EXACTLY where the Bible says that all that is necessary for salvation is contained within it.

What you “claim” or you “think” is not sufficient. Give book, chapter, and verse to support your answer.