Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[Phil12123]

But Phil, in all of your “disobeying Christ” rantings, you fail to consider that the officers had ample time to question the commander about what He meant. You don’t and never have had that opportunity. What you cling to so blindly had been debated and discussed with that very same Commander who issued the command.

**But what you are saying is that the officers discussed it with the Commander and came away from that discussion with a bottom line of, you can baptize non-disciples and nonbelievers, too. That would be a contradiction of what the Commander originally commanded, which cannot be.

Think about what the original command was. Go into all the world and, in effect, win the lost to Me, convert the lost, get people saved, baptizing THEM… teaching THEM to obey all that I have commanded you, including this command to go into all the world and win the lost, convert the lost, get people saved. Perhaps you are hung up on the word “disciple” but when we read Matt 28 in conjunction with Mark 16, it should be clear that Jesus is using the word “disciple” in terms of a believer or a convert. Go preach the Gospel and whoever hears and believes it, repenting of sin, should be baptized. Whoever does not believe it is condemned.
**

To deal with this ridiculous analogy of dogs and households, you are doing something once again that you’ve done numerous times. You’ve inserted your culture into Ancient Israel. It’s typical of why you’ve gone off the beaten path of the Apostolic Church in your Spiritual journey.

Dogs were considered unclean, so Jews would not have dogs as part of the household.

**I thought you said you got my point. Apparently not. Forget the family dog, since it is “unclean.” Let’s say, another family pet, such as a young lamb that is raised by one of the children of the family and loved by all as if it were one of the children. Like the one Nathan told about in his confrontation with David (2 Sam. 12:3). Should that lamb be baptized? Of course not, because it is not a disciple or believer or convert and therefore Jesus did not command that it be baptized. The same is true of infants until they become disciples or believers or converts.

**

 

[NotWorthy]

But what you are saying is that the officers discussed it with the Commander and came away from that discussion with a bottom line of, you can baptize non-disciples and nonbelievers, too. That would be a contradiction of what the Commander originally commanded, which cannot be.

**No, I simply said they came away with infant baptism as a valid Sacrament. “non-disciples and non-believers” is a poor choice of words for it can include adults who are “non-disciples” and “non-believers”. Let’s keep it simple. They baptized infants, just as their ancestors circumcised infants.

Think about what the original command was. Go into all the world and, in effect, win the lost to Me, convert the lost, get people saved, baptizing THEM… teaching THEM to obey all that I have commanded you,

Including the Mass, Phil? Including the Eucharist? Sacrament of Confession?

including this command to go into all the world and win the lost, convert the lost, get people saved. Perhaps you are hung up on the word “disciple” but when we read Matt 28 in conjunction with Mark 16, it should be clear that Jesus is using the word “disciple” in terms of a believer or a convert. Go preach the Gospel and whoever hears and believes it, repenting of sin, should be baptized. Whoever does not believe it is condemned.

That’s true. How we act on our faith is what will determine whether Christ decides to save or condemn us. We can be baptized as children or as adults, and if we are disobedient, we go through door number 2.

Meanwhile, we’ll just keep obeying Christ and His Church while we baptize infants.
**

**

I thought you said you got my point. Apparently not. Forget the family dog, since it is “unclean.” Let’s say, another family pet, such as a young lamb that is raised by one of the children of the family and loved by all as if it were one of the children.

Yes, I got your point, Phil. You were using a ridiculous argument to prove the invalidity of someone else’s point. We can get into the souls of animals in another thread if you like.

Like the one Nathan told about in his confrontation with David (2 Sam. 12:3). Should that lamb be baptized? Of course not, because it is not a disciple or believer or convert and therefore Jesus did not command that it be baptized. The same is true of infants until they become disciples or believers or converts.

No, there is a big difference. That baby has a soul. The lamb doesn’t.**

 

[jmcrae]

**But what you are saying is that the officers discussed it with the Commander and came away from that discussion with a bottom line of, you can baptize non-disciples and nonbelievers, too. That would be a contradiction of what the Commander originally commanded, which cannot be.

Think about what the original command was. Go into all the world and, in effect, win the lost to Me, convert the lost, get people saved, baptizing THEM… teaching THEM to obey all that I have commanded you, including this command to go into all the world and win the lost, convert the lost, get people saved. Perhaps you are hung up on the word “disciple” but when we read Matt 28 in conjunction with Mark 16, it should be clear that Jesus is using the word “disciple” in terms of a believer or a convert. Go preach the Gospel and whoever hears and believes it, repenting of sin, should be baptized. Whoever does not believe it is condemned.
**

**I thought you said you got my point. Apparently not. Forget the family dog, since it is “unclean.” Let’s say, another family pet, such as a young lamb that is raised by one of the children of the family and loved by all as if it were one of the children. Like the one Nathan told about in his confrontation with David (2 Sam. 12:3). Should that lamb be baptized? Of course not, because it is not a disciple or believer or convert and therefore Jesus did not command that it be baptized. The same is true of infants until they become disciples or believers or converts.

**

Infants are human beings; animals are not.

No Jew would have had a non-Jew living in his house, which is why Jewish babies were circumcised and brought into the Covenant of Abraham long before they had any “choice” in the matter.

Likewise, it is not fitting that there be non-Christians living in a Christian household, so we baptize our babies into the Christian faith.

I remember being told one time of a mother who was going to bring her unbaptized child to a family gathering, and the child’s grandmother said, “Sorry, we don’t allow Pagans into this house - baptize the kid, first, before you come over, or else don’t come.” Maybe that’s a bit harsh, but it does drive the point home - we are not in Christ until we are baptized, and it is not fair to children to exclude them from His kingdom, especially if everyone else in the family is practicing their Christian faith.

 

[nonsumd]

**Should that lamb be baptized? Of course not, because it is not a disciple or believer or convert and therefore Jesus did not command that it be baptized. The same is true of infants until they become disciples or believers or converts.

**

I’m just jumping back in here after a long time on another threads.

The last time I checked a lamb was not the same thing as a human being whereas a human infant by definition was a human being.

Phil, do you perchance incline to the Pro-Choice position?

Baptism imparts grace, but it does not impart full spiritual maturity, the fullness of the faith. We do speak of growing in the faith, do we not?

So, a person can be baptized as much before achieving the age of reason as after achieving the age of reason. In any case, the person will still have to grow in faith, in discipleship, after being baptized – at whatever stage that sacrament is received.

 

[Phil12123]

Phil, not even examining your statement theologically, but merely logically, your conclusion does NOT follow from the premise. (Even if it ends up that you are right theologically, your logic is still amiss.)

Jesus says to do X.
You do Y.
Therefore you are disobedient.

From that we don’t know that X was left undone. And we are not told that Y was to NOT be done. So, doing Y does not qualify as disobedience.

**The fallacy of your analysis is in the details of what X and Y specifically say or are. Let’s look at the details:

Jesus says, as you go, make DISCIPLES out of all nations, baptizing THEM… teaching THEM… That would be your X.

So, let’s suppose they went out, and as they went, no one became a disciple. No one believed the message they preached. But they still baptized people anyway, nonbelievers. That would be like Y.

Now, you tell me. Are they obeying Jesus when they baptized the nonbelievers? Was X obeyed? Or was X left undone? Did Jesus have to say, don’t baptize nonbelievers? Isn’t that understood by WHOM He said to baptize—disciples?**

Now, theologically, you have taken the scriptures and made it say something that it does not say.

Scripture says:

1. Go, make disciples.
2. Go, baptizing and
3. Go, teaching.

I disagree with your assessment of Matthew 28 declaring who is to be baptized. I do not think that in Matthew 28 we have Jesus actually say commenting at all with regard to who is to be baptized.

You don’t think Jesus is actually “commenting at all with regard to who is to be baptized”? So, you think He left it wide open? Baptize anyone? Believers and nonbelievers alike? Baptize atheists and agnostics and skeptics and anyone you want to? What? With the hope that maybe some day they might just become believers in Christ and the Gospel? Is that what you think?

 

[MariaG]

** So, you think He left it wide open? Baptize anyone**? Believers and nonbelievers alike? Baptize atheists and agnostics and skeptics and anyone you want to? What? With the hope that maybe some day they might just become believers in Christ and the Gospel? Is that what you think?

Nope, He did not leave it wideopen. That is why scripture speaks of “You and your household”.

We cannot help it if you choose to follow an interpretation that was nowhere in Christian history, even that of the Reformers.

Baptism replaced circumcision. It is the circumcision of the heart. God chooses to work through the hands of men and water to apply the saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice. How do we know this? Through faith. (And the recorded records of the early Church )

Col 2:11-12
11] In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;
12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

[NotWorthy]

**
Jesus says, as you go, make DISCIPLES out of all nations, baptizing THEM… teaching THEM… That would be your X.**

OK, I think I see where you are coming from Phil. According to your logic:

a) Make them a Disciple.
b) Baptize them.
c) Then, and only then, do you teach them all that Jesus commanded.

So how DO you become a disciple if you haven’t learned about Christ? Now see there? Evidently I don’t see where you’re coming from.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You don’t think Jesus is actually “commenting at all with regard to who is to be baptized”? So, you think He left it wide open? Baptize anyone? Believers and nonbelievers alike? Baptize atheists and agnostics and skeptics and anyone you want to? What? With the hope that maybe some day they might just become believers in Christ and the Gospel? Is that what you think?

My answer is different than Maria’s.

Yes, I do happen to think that in that particular set of instructions Jesus left it wide open. I also think that Jesus had showng his disciples what he meant, and that they then were able to understand said statement in the context of the last 3 years of ministry that they had shared alongside Jesus. I suspect that they were to continue baptizing just as they had already baptized, that they were to teach just as they had seen him teach, that they were to make disciples just as they had been disciples. Those instructions were, I think, implicit but unsaid in the final command that Jesus gave to his disciples.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

OK, I think I see where you are coming from Phil. According to your logic:

a) Make them a Disciple.
b) Baptize them.
c) Then, and only then, do you teach them all that Jesus commanded.

So how DO you become a disciple if you haven’t learned about Christ? Now see there? Evidently I don’t see where you’re coming from.

That isn’t what I hear him saying, though I can see why you might.

 

[NotWorthy]

That isn’t what I hear him saying, though I can see why you might.

Then can you tell me what he’s saying in a less patronizing way then Phil does.

You can PM me if you like.

 

[jmcrae]

Then can you tell me what he’s saying in a less patronizing way then Phil does.

You can PM me if you like.

What I think Phil is saying, and this actually conforms to how the Catholic Church deals with adult converts, is that first, you disciple people (the Catechumenate is how we disciple adult converts) and then you baptize them.

Which is exactly what the Catholic Church does for adult converts - but we presume that the children of Christian parents are going to be raised in the Christian faith, which is why we baptize them in anticipation of their discipleship, which comes about naturally in the home, rather than in a regularized system of instruction like the Catechumenate.

 

[NotWorthy]

What I think Phil is saying, and this actually conforms to how the Catholic Church deals with adult converts, is that first, you disciple people (the Catechumenate is how we disciple adult converts) and then you baptize them.

Which is exactly what the Catholic Church does for adult converts - but we presume that the children of Christian parents are going to be raised in the Christian faith, which is why we baptize them in anticipation of their discipleship, which comes about naturally in the home, rather than in a regularized system of instruction like the Catechumenate.

OK, but using Phil-Logic, Jesus teaches us to

1. make them disciples and
2. then baptize them.

You can’t do step 2) without first doing step 1. For this reason, we can’t baptize infants. He uses Matthew 28:19 to reach this conclusion.

But if I continue along this line of Phil-Logic, I need to apply it to the rest of Jesus’ command.

Go, therefore, and 1) make disciples of all nations, 2) baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 3) teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

This means that I have to:

1. make them disciples,
2. then baptize them,
3. Then I can teach them, but not before.

 

[Phil12123]

Me to Grace Seeker: So, you think He left it wide open? Baptize anyone? Believers and nonbelievers alike? Baptize atheists and agnostics and skeptics and anyone you want to? What? With the hope that maybe some day they might just become believers in Christ and the Gospel? Is that what you think?

**MariaG: Nope, He did not leave it wideopen. That is why scripture speaks of “You and your household”.
**
Have you ever heard of tearing something out of its context and making it say something that was never intended? That is what you have done with “you and your household.” That verse (Acts 16:31) deals with believing to be saved and has nothing to do with baptism. The most you can make of that verse is, if the jailor believes in Jesus, he and his entire household will be saved. That is doing an incredible injustice to that verse. But in any event, it does not say anything about baptizing infants.

MariaG: We cannot help it if you choose to follow an interpretation that was nowhere in Christian history, even that of the Reformers.

Would you like me to re-quote Tertullian for you?

**MariaG: Baptism replaced circumcision. It is the circumcision of the heart. God chooses to work through the hands of men and water to apply the saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice. How do we know this? Through faith.
**
No, it is through faith and by the grace of God that the saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice is applied to men (Eph. 2:8-9), not through water and the hands of men.

 

[jmcrae]

No, it is through faith and by the grace of God that the saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice is applied to men (Eph. 2:8-9), not through water and the hands of men.

Faith and grace are the “what”; baptism and the laying on of hands are the “how”.

God (Jesus) gave us these rituals to use, and commanded us to use them.

 

[Phil12123]

Yes, I do happen to think that in that particular set of instructions Jesus left it wide open. I also think that Jesus had shown his disciples what he meant, and that they then were able to understand said statement in the context of the last 3 years of ministry that they had shared alongside Jesus. I suspect that they were to continue baptizing just as they had already baptized, that they were to teach just as they had seen him teach, that they were to make disciples just as they had been disciples. Those instructions were, I think, implicit but unsaid in the final command that Jesus gave to his disciples.

**It seems I have been repeating myself ad nauseam, but how can you see Jesus leaving it wide open as to WHOM they were to baptize in these instructions:
**
**Matt 28:
19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’’ Amen. **

**The participle “baptizing” has a direct object, namely, “them.” The participle “teaching” has a direct object, namely, “them.” And the “them” in both cases has an antecedent, namely, “disciples.” So Jesus is instructing the eleven (at least) to baptize “disciples” made of all nations and to teach “disciples” made of all nations. How can you avoid such a conclusion from the words of those two verses?

Furthermore, if they were to “continue baptizing just as they had already baptized,” how did they do that except as seen in John 4:1-2:
** 1. Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John **
2. (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),

**Again, we see (1) making disciples, and (2) baptizing disciples. In no case do we see any baptizing of non-disciples or making disciples by baptizing.

The means by which “disciples” or converts were made is seen in Mark 16:**
** 15. And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel** to every creature.
16. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

**

 

[Grace_Seeker]

It makes just as much sense (since you are working in English grammar) to say that the verse says make disciples, and the means by which you are to make disciples is baptizing and teaching. But that isn’t what I meant when I said Jesus left it open, because I know that isn’t the grammar behind the Greek.

But what is behind the Greek is that you have three related, but not sequential commands. The disciples are to do all three of these things: make disiciples, baptize, and teach. Jesus does not specify an order in the command. Since he doesn’t specify an order, it does not follow that the baptizing is only to be done of those who are already disciples anymore than that the teaching is only to be of those who are already disciples (the later being NotSoWorthy’s point, with which I know from previous conversations you already agree).

So, who does Jesus want these 11 disciples of his to baptize? He simply doesn’t say in this verse. But I’m willing to take the risk of making an assumption, and that assumption is that based on three years of being with Jesus he didn’t have to spell it all out to them. They already know from prior experience exactly who and how Jesus wants them to make disciples, because they were made into disciples and have seen Jesus gather other disciples beyond the 12. And they already know from prior experience exactly who and when Jesus wants them to baptize, because they have already been baptizing with Jesus. It isn’t open to the Eleven. But it also isn’t answered for us in the way you are trying to answer it. Thus, I think we have to find the answer in what the disciples actually did do. And on this I find myself in agreement with jmcrae, the disciples went out and shared the message as widely as they could. When the head of a household committed to the faith, the whole household was incorporated into the growing faith community. Men, women, slaves, children, and if they had them lambs and dogs and chairs and tables as well. Everything was set aside as belonging to Christ. Where they all baptized? I think all of the people probably were. (I will however not go so far as to agree with the sacramentalism that I read in her post.)

 

[Phil12123]

It makes just as much sense (since you are working in English grammar) to say that the verse says make disciples, and the means by which you are to make disciples is baptizing and teaching. But that isn’t what I meant when I said Jesus left it open, because I know that isn’t the grammar behind the Greek.

But what is behind the Greek is that you have three related, but not sequential commands. The disciples are to do all three of these things: make disciples, baptize, and teach. Jesus does not specify an order in the command. Since he doesn’t specify an order, it does not follow that the baptizing is only to be done of those who are already disciples anymore than that the teaching is only to be of those who are already disciples (the later being NotWorthy’s point, with which I know from previous conversations you already agree).

How would Jesus specify an order in the command other than how the words appear? Here is how the Greek words appear, with the Strong’s numbers next to the English translation:

** 19. |4198| Having gone, |3767| then, |3100| disciple |3956| all |3588| the |1484| ethnics, |0907| immersing |0846| them |1519| into |3588| the |3686| name |3588| of the |3962| Father |2532| and |3588| of the |5207| Son |2532| and |3588| of the |0040| Holy |4151| Spirit,
20. |1321| teaching |0846| them |5083| to observe |3956| all things |3745| whatever |1781| I commanded |5213| you. |2532| And, |2400| listen, |1473| I |3326| with |5216| you |1510| am |3956| all |3588| the |2250| days |2193| until |3588| the |4930| consummation |3588| of the |0165| age.**

Jesus, I suppose, could have used numbers or said something like, first, make disciples, second, baptize them…, and finally, teach them to observe all things whatever I commanded you. But isn’t that the effect of how He spoke the word order of those verses? Certainly teaching might precede the sinner’s conversion, but that would be done as part of preaching the Gospel (Mark 16). When they believe what is preached, they would then, and only then, be baptized. If they did not believe, they obviously would not be baptized. And, of course, if they believed, they would be taught to go out and do the same thing, preach the Gospel, make more disciples, etc. You are just hung up on your tradition of baptizing babies, so you want to make some allowance for their baptism before believing. But is that really what Jesus commanded? Is there any sense in His words of the Eleven going out and baptizing nonbelievers, infant or otherwise? How would you teach an infant to go out and make his own disciples? It just doesn’t fit.

 

[Phil12123]

It makes just as much sense (since you are working in English grammar) to say that the verse says make disciples, and the means by which you are to make disciples is baptizing and teaching. But that isn’t what I meant when I said Jesus left it open, because I know that isn’t the grammar behind the Greek.

Also, I thought you already concluded that baptizing and teaching was not the means by which you are to make disciples:

**Looking at the grammar again, the syntax of the Greek grammar precludes the Lutheran suggestion that baptizing and teaching are to be understood only in the context as a means for the making of disciples. In fact, they are independent of “make disciples”. For although when a participle precedes an imperative verb it gains the imperative force for itself, this is not the usual case with participles that follow an imperative verb.

So, baptizing and teaching are not the means of making disciples but they do characterize it. Thus as Jesus disciples go forth making new disciples one of the things they will do subsequent to that is to baptize them and teach them.

From your post #283 on page 19 of this thread.**

 

[Phil12123]

If you would like to see Matt. 28:19-20 in the Greek to verify the word order, here it is:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Grace_Seeker]

How would Jesus specify an order in the command other than how the words appear? Here is how the Greek words appear, with the Strong’s numbers next to the English translation:

** 19. |4198| Having gone, |3767| then, |3100| disciple** |3956| all |3588| the |1484| ethnics, |0907| immersing |0846| them |1519| into |3588| the |3686| name |3588| of the |3962| Father |2532| and |3588| of the |5207| Son |2532| and |3588| of the |0040| Holy |4151| Spirit,
20. |1321| teaching |0846| them |5083| to observe |3956| all things |3745| whatever |1781| I commanded |5213| you. |2532| And, |2400| listen, |1473| I |3326| with |5216| you |1510| am |3956| all |3588| the |2250| days |2193| until |3588| the |4930| consummation |3588| of the |0165| age.

Jesus, I suppose, could have used numbers or said something like, first, make disciples, second, baptize them…, and finally, teach them to observe all things whatever I commanded you. But isn’t that the effect of how He spoke the word order of those verses? Certainly teaching might precede the sinner’s conversion, but that would be done as part of preaching the Gospel (Mark 16). When they believe what is preached, they would then, and only then, be baptized. If they did not believe, they obviously would not be baptized. And, of course, if they believed, they would be taught to go out and do the same thing, preach the Gospel, make more disciples, etc. You are just hung up on your tradition of baptizing babies, so you want to make some allowance for their baptism before believing. But is that really what Jesus commanded? Is there any sense in His words of the Eleven going out and baptizing nonbelievers, infant or otherwise? How would you teach an infant to go out and make his own disciples? It just doesn’t fit.

If you would like to see Matt. 28:19-20 in the Greek to verify the word order, here it is:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x291/Phil12123/Matt28-19-20Greek1.gif

Phil, you know that I know the word order, in both English and in Greek. And the reason I said, “It makes just as much sense (since you are working in English grammar) to say that the verse says make disciples, and the means by which you are to make disciples is baptizing and teaching.” Was because of the logic you had used in your prior post. Working in English there are three possible conclusions:

1. Make disciples, then baptize and teach them. Your conclusion.
2. Make disciples by baptizing and teaching.
   But Greek grammar allows for neither of these conclusions. So, we are left with.
3. A series of non-sequential commands:
   a. Go making disciples
   b. Go, baptizing
   c. Go, teaching.

How could Jesus have given an order to the events? As you said by specifying first, second and third. He didn’t. So, I don’t know that we should impose one.

But let us suppose just for one moment that we do all of these things in this abc order. How does even that preclude infant baptism? Can you not hear the Catholic response? That’s right, when children are born into a Christian household, at that very moment we claim them for Jesus and make them disciples.

Disciple doesn’t have to equate with believer. Disciple only means student, learner. Judas Iscariot was a disciple; he hardly qualifies as a believer. Or see John 6:60-66, many of Jesus’ disciples turned away and quit following him. But, vs. 69, Peter believed. Thus there were many more disciples than there were believers in Jesus’ ministry.

Now, I’m not arguing that we should baptize adult athiests, but I see it doing no damage to the gospel to make disciples of young children, baptize them into the community of faith, and then continue to teach them. And, why not adult athiests? Because they are not willing to be disciples.

Where you and Catholic beliefs on baptism agree, and where you both disagree with my view, is that you both think that baptism makes a person a Christian and I think that it is belief that makes a person a Christian. So, yes, in baptizing infants, I am baptizing non-Christians, but people who, like Judas, are nontheless disciples of Christ.