Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[Phil12123]

Me: The only reason that my opinion is humble is that, except where it is only based on the clear words of Scripture (like Matt. 28:19), it is just my opinion, not a “Thus-saith-the-Lord”-kind-of declaration. On the other hand, the opinions stated by the Church are not given as its “opinion” but as dogma that must be accepted or you are not believing the truth. You can ignore what I say as opinion and express your own opinion, and I will not send you to hell because yours differs from mine. I don’t pronounce anathemas on anyone for disagreeing with my opinion.

NotWorthy: So, Jesus was just joking when He told the Church, "He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me".?

I think He was talking about nonbelievers not hearing those who were preaching the Gospel. Are YOU a nonbeliever? How does your quote relate to US?

NotWorthy: Phil, who was the last person that the Church “sent to hell”.

I give up, who? But what does that question have to do with what I said?

NotWorthy: You don’t pronounce anathemas?!? Well of course you don’t! Jesus didn’t commission you, Phil!

And He commissioned your church do pronounce anathemas?

NotWorthy: But, to your point about “pronouncing anathemas”, you skate dangerously close to “pronouncing anathemas” EVERY TIME YOU ACCUSE ME OF FIGHTING JESUS AND HIS WORDS!!!

**When I say you are fighting Jesus’ clear words in Matt 28:19 to baptize disciples, not infants, I am not expressing an opinion. I am expressing a fact. Nevertheless I have never pronounced any curse upon you or anyone else, nor condemned you to hell for fighting His words. I will let Him be your Judge. **

 

[Phil12123]

We disagree, Phil. Catholics don’t consider children “pets” like animals who are members of a houselhold, but precious gifts of God that belong to the God who conceived them, and have an eternal soul. ** Jesus said to let the children come to Him, and did no specify any age. **

Why do you insist on repeating that mantra, “Jesus said to let the children come to Him,” when it has nothing to do with infant baptism?

And since we believe that baptism has replaced circumcision as the initiation rite into the covenant, it seems perfectly reasonable to us to baptize infants.

Infants were circumcised at 8 days old, with NO profession of faith from anyone. The New Covenant is entered only by a profession of faith on the part of the person entering it. No one can do that for anyone else. Jesus did not specify an age for entering the New Covenant; rather, He specified being made a disciple/believer. Under the Old Covenant, male infants were not made disciples or believers before their circumcision. They were simply born of a Jewish father who had himself been circumcised. Faith had nothing to do with the circumcision, unlike baptism which is only for believers.

The profession of faith is ALWAYS a requirement for each of the sacraments, including baptism. No one is to be baptized without the profession of faith.

Not for infants. Infants cannot make a profession of faith, and it is of no consequence for a parent or godparent to profess they have faith. They are not being baptized. The infants are. So, the infants are being baptized without their profession of faith.

I think you are wrong, Phil. No one was circumcised without a profession of faith. Infants were cirucumcised on the basis of their parents profession of faith. Converts to Judiasm had to make a profession of faith, and those born into the covenant were circumcised as a matter of the faith practice of the household in which they were born.

Where do you see that in Scripture? Converts to Judaism obviously had faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But where do you see any profession of faith required of anyone when an 8-day-old baby was circumcised?

 

[jmcrae]

Where do you see that in Scripture? Converts to Judaism obviously had faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But where do you see any profession of faith required of anyone when an 8-day-old baby was circumcised?

That 8-day old baby was most certainly making a profession of faith with his body - he was becoming a Jew, and entering into the Covenant of Abraham.

Prior to his circumcision, he was a Gentile (and even if his parents are Jewish, he is regarded as a Gentile if he does not get circumcised - remember how St. Timothy was treated by the Jews, to the point where St. Paul told him he had to get circumcised so as to be accepted by them as a fellow Jew, because for some reason he had not been circumcised in infancy - but when he gets circumcised, he takes for his ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - even if he is not physically decended from them - for example, if his parents or some other ancestors of his were adult converts to the Jewish faith) - afterwards, he becomes a Jew, and bound to believe all that the Jewish religion teaches him. He has no choice in the matter. (And why, after all, should he be given a choice in the matter? )

 

[Phil12123]

**That 8-day old baby was most certainly making a profession of faith with his body **- he was becoming a Jew, and entering into the Covenant of Abraham.

Come now, aren’t we stretching things a bit? An 8-day-old baby has no faith to profess. He may be circumcised, but only by the Jewish parent’s obedience to have that done to their baby son. The son himself has no faith, and makes no profession of anything at that age. And his parents are not professing their faith for the son or on behalf of the son. There simply was no requirement for that baby to have any faith. Read all of Genesis 17 and show me where the baby had to have any faith. God does not require of His creatures that which is impossible for His creatures.

 

[jmcrae]

Come now, aren’t we stretching things a bit? An 8-day-old baby has no faith to profess. He may be circumcised, but only by the Jewish parent’s obedience to have that done to their baby son. The son himself has no faith, and makes no profession of anything at that age. And his parents are not professing their faith for the son or on behalf of the son. There simply was no requirement for that baby to have any faith. Read all of Genesis 17 and show me where the baby had to have any faith. God does not require of His creatures that which is impossible for His creatures.

Phil;

Keep in mind, if the baby is not circumcised, he does not become Jewish. Even if both of his parents can trace their ancestry physically back to Abraham. (Judaism is not a race; it’s a religion.)

He is entering a religion - a way of expressing faith - when he gets circumcised. He will not wait until adulthood, or the “age of accountability” to make a choice about whether to become Jewish or not, on the basis of his own opinion of the matter. He becomes Jewish when he gets circumcised.

Nobody is born Jewish, the same way that nobody is born Christian. We are all heathens at birth. Jewish parents join their children into Abraham’s covenant - that is, the Jewish religion - by circumcising them. Christian parents join their children into Christ’s covenant - that is, the Christian religion - by baptising them.

 

[NotWorthy]

Me: The only reason that my opinion is humble is that, except where it is only based on the clear words of Scripture (like Matt. 28:19), it is just my opinion, not a “Thus-saith-the-Lord”-kind-of declaration. On the other hand, the opinions stated by the Church are not given as its “opinion” but as dogma that must be accepted or you are not believing the truth. You can ignore what I say as opinion and express your own opinion, and I will not send you to hell because yours differs from mine. I don’t pronounce anathemas on anyone for disagreeing with my opinion.

NotWorthy: So, Jesus was just joking when He told the Church, "He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me".?

I think He was talking about nonbelievers not hearing those who were preaching the Gospel. Are YOU a nonbeliever? How does your quote relate to US?

**
Well, Jesus was talking about non-believers not hearing the Church. Jesus didn’t address this to the multitudes. He addressed this to those who started HIs Church.

His words, in your instance, would have been more like, “He who hears those who preach the Gospel, hear me. He who rejects those who preach the Gospel, reject me”. This is not the case.
**
**

NotWorthy: Phil, who was the last person that the Church “sent to hell”.

**

I give up, who? But what does that question have to do with what I said?

You made the statement about "you’re not the one who sends people to hell. In this statement you are implying that the Church sends people to hell. I would call this a false statement. Do you rescind this implication?

**

NotWorthy: You don’t pronounce anathemas?!? Well of course you don’t! Jesus didn’t commission you, Phil!

**

And He commissioned your church do pronounce anathemas?

Well, Paul certainly didn’t hesitate. Paul was part of my Church. So… Yeah.

**

NotWorthy: But, to your point about “pronouncing anathemas”, you skate dangerously close to “pronouncing anathemas” EVERY TIME YOU ACCUSE ME OF FIGHTING JESUS AND HIS WORDS!!!

**

**When I say you are fighting Jesus’ clear words in Matt 28:19 to baptize disciples, not infants, I am not expressing an opinion. I am expressing a fact. **You are expressing a fact based on your opinion. Therefore you are judging me, and judging me incorrectly, I might add.

Nevertheless I have never pronounced any curse upon you or anyone else, nor condemned you to hell for fighting His words. I will let Him be your Judge.

Phil. The Church has not and cannot condemn anyone to hell. Who ever told you this is wrong. Whoever you tell this to is receving false information.

 

[Phil12123]

Keep in mind, if the baby is not circumcised, he does not become Jewish. Even if both of his parents can trace their ancestry physically back to Abraham. (Judaism is not a race; it’s a religion.)

He is entering a religion - a way of expressing faith - when he gets circumcised. He will not wait until adulthood, or the “age of accountability” to make a choice about whether to become Jewish or not, on the basis of his own opinion of the matter. He becomes Jewish when he gets circumcised.

Nobody is born Jewish, the same way that nobody is born Christian. We are all heathens at birth. Jewish parents join their children into Abraham’s covenant - that is, the Jewish religion - by circumcising them. Christian parents join their children into Christ’s covenant - that is, the Christian religion - by baptising them.

According to some Rabbis online, a person is born Jewish if he has a Jewish mother. No mention of circumcision. Here’s one example:

**While a Christian is defined as one who follows the teachings of Jesus, a Jew is defined as one born from a Jewish mother or converted according to Jewish Law. That being said - a person remains a member of the Jewish nation for the rest of their life regardless of what religious practices that person chooses to follow/reject. And yes, as a nation we have our own culture, foods, land, and even diseases.

judaism.about.com/od/orthodoxfaqenkin/f/raceorreligion.htm
**

Here’s another:

**Being Jewish is a legal status, either by virtue of having a Jewish mother, or by proper conversion. According to Jewish law, this will remain the person’s status forever. There is no way one can lose his status as a Jew even if he thinks he has gone so far as to convert to another religion!

Rabbi Shraga Simmons

judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_iswifejewish.htm**

**I tried to go to “Ask a Rabbi” to ask how circumcision affected things, but could not find a link to ask that question. So, according to some Rabbis, a person who simply has a Jewish mother is Jewish, not Gentile.

Also, I find it interesting that a Jew never loses that identity or status, even if he converts to another religion. Sounds like OSAS, or perhaps more accurately, OJAJ.**

 

[Phil12123]

**You made the statement about "you’re not the one who sends people to hell. ** In this statement you are implying that the Church sends people to hell. I would call this a false statement. Do you rescind this implication?

I made no such statement. Please don’t put words into my mouth. If I made such a statement, why is it not quoted in your post, showing my usual blue-colored wording?

You are expressing a fact based on your opinion. Therefore you are judging me, and judging me incorrectly, I might add.

Jesus says to baptize disciples made of all nations. You say to baptize infants. Infants are not disciples made of all nations. Therefore you are disobeying or disregarding or ignoring the command of Christ. That is a fact, not opinion.

Phil. The Church has not and cannot condemn anyone to hell. Who ever told you this is wrong. Whoever you tell this to is receving false information.

Again, I never said that. But, nevertheless, it may be true when you consider all the anathemas pronounced against people by the Council of Trent. You tell me — what does it mean when it says, “If anyone says [such and such], let him be anathema”? For example:

If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

What does that mean when it says, “let him be anathema”?

 

[NotWorthy]

According to some Rabbis online, a person is born Jewish if he has a Jewish mother. No mention of circumcision. Here’s one example:

Ask your friend the Rabbi when that Law changed, for it was not always the case.

 

[NotWorthy]

I made no such statement. Please don’t put words into my mouth. If I made such a statement, why is it not quoted in your post, showing my usual blue-colored wording?

**OK, let’s go to the tape. Here you are discussing your “humble opinion” as opposed to the Church’s “humble opinion”
**

The only reason that my opinion is humble is that, except where it is only based on the clear words of Scripture (like Matt. 28:19), it is just my opinion, not a “Thus-saith-the-Lord”-kind-of declaration. On the other hand, the opinions stated by the Church are not given as its “opinion” but as dogma that must be accepted or you are not believing the truth. You can ignore what I say as opinion and express your own opinion, and I will not send you to hell because yours differs from mine. I don’t pronounce anathemas on anyone for disagreeing with my opinion.

“However, your Church does all this…” is what you are clearly implying, if not outright saying.

But if you withdraw the fact that you think my Church does this, we can move on.

**

Jesus says to baptize disciples made of all nations. You say to baptize infants. Infants are not disciples made of all nations. Therefore you are disobeying or disregarding or ignoring the command of Christ. That is a fact, not opinion.

**zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzz Oh, that’s Phil again. Just tell him to re-read the responses to this accusation the other 100 times he’s thrown it out. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

**

Again, I never said that. But, nevertheless, it may be true when you consider all the anathemas pronounced against people by the Council of Trent. You tell me — what does it mean when it says, “If anyone says [such and such], let him be anathema”? For example:

**

If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

What does that mean when it says, “let him be anathema”?

Ahhhhhh, “I didn’t say it, but since you brought up the subject…” Is that what you’re doing here, Phil?

To answer your question, what does anathema mean? Well, Paul uses it in 1st Corinthians to mean “accursed”. So again, if Paul uses it, then it is an authority of the Church.

But it doesn’t, as you state in your humble opinion, condemn someone to hell, for there is always a chance that someone who is accursed to repent and return to the Church.

As you well know, if someone is condemned to hell, it is through their own actions, not the Church’s. Like say, if they fight Jesus’ words or what-not.

 

[Phil12123]

OK, let’s go to the tape. Here you are discussing your “humble opinion” as opposed to the Church’s "humble opinion"

“However, your Church does all this…” is what you are clearly implying, if not outright saying.

But if you withdraw the fact that you think my Church does this, we can move on.

**Yes, let’s go to the tape. I stated something and included “IMHO” in the statement. You then asked, Phil can have a humble opinion but the Church can’t? I then compared my “humble opinion” (which anyone can disagree with, as you have many times) with the “humble opinion” of your church (which no one can disagree with since theirs are all dogmas to be believed without disputing them). I didn’t say the consequence of not believing the dogmas, like going to hell, as you have implied. But then that may very well be the consequence if the church’s statement includes, “let him be anathema,” which, as you say, means to be accursed. If it is “let God’s curse be upon him,” obviously that person cannot go to heaven with God’s curse upon him. You are right, I suppose, that he could repent and hopefully that would remove the curse. Despite Paul’s use of that expression, I question whether anyone in the church has been “commissioned” to pronounce such a curse upon anyone. **

As you well know, if someone is condemned to hell, it is through their own actions, not the Church’s. Like say, if they fight Jesus’ words or what-not.

**True, but according to your beliefs, the Church can retain sins, not forgiving them, which would in effect keep someone condemned to hell.

I want you to know that I don’t retain your sin of fighting Jesus’ words…that is, if you repent of it. **

 

[Phil12123]

**Jesus says to baptize disciples made of all nations. You say to baptize infants. Infants are not disciples made of all nations. Therefore you are disobeying or disregarding or ignoring the command of Christ. That is a fact, not opinion. **

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzz Oh, that’s Phil again. Just tell him to re-read the responses to this accusation the other 100 times he’s thrown it out. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hmmmmm…sounds like you’re still in denial. Not a good sign of repentance.

 

[NotWorthy]

**Yes, let’s go to the tape. I stated something and included “IMHO” in the statement. You then asked, Phil can have a humble opinion but the Church can’t? I then compared my “humble opinion” (which anyone can disagree with, as you have many times) with the “humble opinion” of your church (which no one can disagree with since theirs are all dogmas to be believed without disputing them). I didn’t say the consequence of not believing the dogmas, like going to hell, as you have implied. But then that may very well be the consequence if the church’s statement includes, “let him be anathema,” which, as you say, means to be accursed. If it is “let God’s curse be upon him,” obviously that person cannot go to heaven with God’s curse upon him. **

**Phil, be honest. When you say compare your opinions to the Church, and you declare that at least people that disagree with you are not condemned to hell, you are pretty much saying that this is what the Church does. Go and ahead and try and slip out of it, or just admit that you were wrong to imply that.

You are right, I suppose, that he could repent and hopefully that would remove the curse. Despite Paul’s use of that expression,

**

**I question whether anyone in the church has been “commissioned” to pronounce such a curse upon anyone. **

Phil, why are you fighting the words of Jesus. He clearly gave Peter, and then the Apostles the power to bind and loose. Look up what this authority of binding and loosing was among the Pharisee’s and you’ll see that the Church does have the authority, just as Paul demonstrates (for he was a member of the Church), to pronounce anyone anathema.
**

True, but according to your beliefs, the Church can retain sins, not forgiving them, which would in effect keep someone condemned to hell.

Phil, why do you say “according to your beliefs”, when it clearly says so in Scripture? Why do you fight the very words of Jesus?

I want you to know that I don’t retain your sin of fighting Jesus’ words…that is, if you repent of it.

**Yeah, I can sleep better knowing that!

 

[NotWorthy]

Hmmmmm…sounds like you’re still in denial. Not a good sign of repentance.

No, either that or you are simply repeating the same tired line that you began around page 15.

Contrary to what you may have been taught, Phil, simply repeating something over and over does not make it true.

Let’s see if I’ve got this right - I’m trying to be obedient to the very Church that Christ founded, and I’m accused of fighting Christ’s words. While you are either following a tradition of man, or simply inventing your own beliefs, and you accuse me of resisting. That’s why my head hurts!

 

[jmcrae]

According to some Rabbis online, a person is born Jewish if he has a Jewish mother. No mention of circumcision. Here’s one example:

**While a Christian is defined as one who follows the teachings of Jesus, a Jew is defined as one born from a Jewish mother or converted according to Jewish Law. That being said - a person remains a member of the Jewish nation for the rest of their life regardless of what religious practices that person chooses to follow/reject. And yes, as a nation we have our own culture, foods, land, and even diseases.

judaism.about.com/od/orthodoxfaqenkin/f/raceorreligion.htm**

Here’s another:

**Being Jewish is a legal status, either by virtue of having a Jewish mother, or by proper conversion. According to Jewish law, this will remain the person’s status forever. There is no way one can lose his status as a Jew even if he thinks he has gone so far as to convert to another religion!

Rabbi Shraga Simmons

judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_iswifejewish.htm**

**I tried to go to “Ask a Rabbi” to ask how circumcision affected things, but could not find a link to ask that question. So, according to some Rabbis, a person who simply has a Jewish mother is Jewish, not Gentile.

Also, I find it interesting that a Jew never loses that identity or status, even if he converts to another religion. Sounds like OSAS, or perhaps more accurately, OJAJ.**

Ask them what happens if the Jewish mother is non-practicing, or if she is in a mixed marriage, and the child is never circumcised. (Say, for example, if she is married to a Catholic man, and he has the child baptized, instead of allowing him to be circumcised.

Is the child Catholic, or Jewish?

And how do you account for most Muslims and other Semitic peoples, who obviously are not considered Jewish, even though they probably are physically descended from Abraham, through Ishmael?

 

[Phil12123]

Phil, be honest. When you say compare your opinions to the Church, and you declare that at least people that disagree with you are not condemned to hell, you are pretty much saying that this is what the Church does. Go and ahead and try and slip out of it, or just admit that you were wrong to imply that.

You said it, not me, that the Church has the power to anathematize people, which essentially is to condemn them to hell, and that I shouldn’t fight the words of Jesus that give it that right. (Very clever — a good offense is a good defense — accuse me of what I have accused you of — fighting the words of Jesus). But you’re changing your story. Originally, you said the church doesn’t do that; people do that by their own choices. Yet now the church has that power and I shouldn’t fight it.

 

[jmcrae]

**You said it, not me, that the Church has the power to anathematize people, which essentially is to condemn them to hell - **

No, not at all. “Anathema sit” does not mean “go to Hell” - it just means that the person has placed himself outside of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome. Since you are already outside of the Church, there is no reason for this to worry you.

 

[NotWorthy]

You said it, not me, that the Church has the power to anathematize people, which essentially is to condemn them to hell, and that I shouldn’t fight the words of Jesus that give it that right. (Very clever — a good offense is a good defense — accuse me of what I have accused you of — fighting the words of Jesus). But you’re changing your story. Originally, you said the church doesn’t do that; people do that by their own choices. Yet now the church has that power and I shouldn’t fight it.

No, Phil. it is NOT to condemn them to hell, as you so casually assume the Church has done. My story remains the same. If’ it’s changed, you are welcome to point it out.

But anathema and condemn to hell are separate and mutually exclusive things.

And just as St. Paul demonstrated, the Church has the authority to anathemetize (?) someone.

 

[guanophore]

** Why do you insist on repeating that mantra, “Jesus said to let the children come to Him,” when it has nothing** to do with infant baptism?

The Church teaches us that it does, Phil. We understand baptism to be the rite of initiation into the new covenant, and that it is not to be withheld from anyone, no matter what their age.

Infants were circumcised at 8 days old, with NO profession of faith from anyone.

This is a misunderstanding of the rite of circumcision. If you don’t believe me, then attend a briss in your local community. The child is presented upon the basis of the parents’ faith, and they make the commitment on behalf of the child.
Phil12123;2726675:

The New Covenant is entered only by a profession of faith on the part of the person entering it.

This is not consistent with NT teaching, nor the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles.

Yes, a profession of faith is made, but it is not separated from baptism.

No one can do that for anyone else.

There are examples in scripture where people make a profession of faith on behalf of others, and ask for Jesus to pour out His grace upon their loved ones. God is especially delighted to do this on behalf of children and the disabled, who may not be able to ask for themselves.

Jesus did not specify an age for entering the New Covenant; rather, He specified being made a disciple/believer.

At least we can agree that He did not specify the age, and enjoined the Apostles to let the children come to Him. Jesus did not specify that a person being baptized had to become a disciple. He specified that disciples were to be baptized. We know that some of those who were baptized later abandoned Him.

Under the Old Covenant, male infants were not made disciples or believers before

their circumcision. They were simply born of a Jewish father who had himself been circumcised.

Exactly. And this is the pattern we use for baptizing infants. The expectation was that the child would be brought up as a Son of the Covenant.

Faith had nothing to do with the circumcision, unlike baptism which is only for believers.

It is false to say that faith has nothing to do with circumcision. You will need to study up on your Jewish history. No one is circumcised without a profession of faith, either from themselves, as a proselyte, or from the parents, as those in authority of one born in a covenant household.

Baptism of adults is only given to believers.

Not for infants. Infants cannot make a profession of faith, and it is of no consequence for a parent or godparent to profess they have faith. They are not being baptized. The infants are. So, the infants are being baptized without their profession of faith.

It is of every consequence that a parent or godparent profess their faith,and their commitment to raise the child in that faith. Without that profession and commitment, the child will not be baptized. yes, infants are baptized before they are able to make a profession of faith. And, in following with the Jewish pattern that Jesus lived, they make their own profession of faith when they come of age.
Phil12123;2726675:

Where do you see that in Scripture? Converts to Judaism obviously had faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But where do you see any profession of faith required of anyone when an 8-day-old baby was circumcised?

As I said, you will have to study the rite of circumcision. The only babies circumcised are those that are born into covenantal families who profess the faith. This is how Jesus was circumcised, on the basis of His parents’ faith.

 

[Phil12123]

No, Phil. it is NOT to condemn them to hell, as you so casually assume the Church has done.

But anathema and condemn to hell are separate and mutually exclusive things.

And just as St. Paul demonstrated, the Church has the authority to anathemetize (?) someone.

So please explain the difference. Placing someone under a divine curse is what? Excommunicating them? But not condemning them to hell? How are they “mutually exclusive”?