Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[jmcrae]

**I understand your desire to show the Church in the best light, but when the Church ruled that a Christian was guilty of heresy, such as the belief that a person should be re-baptized after becoming a believer (thereby teaching that the first baptism was of no effect scripturally, contrary to the teaching of the RCC), it was hardly something that would “foment revolution” in terms of overthrowing any secular, civil authority. **

Keep in mind, they didn’t live in a multi-cultural society back in those days. The very concept of living next door to someone who practiced a different religion or even attended a different parish church was completely unknown to them. (Jews were required to live in ghettos for precisely this reason - because it was unthinkable to live next door to someone of a different religion.)

Governments were sincerely convinced that to permit a new religion to be invented, and to have followers of this new religion living in the same area as their people, would be a source of civil unrest. (They were right, as it turned out. The wars between Protestant and Catholic, and between the various different forms of Protestantism, went on for nearly 200 years in Europe.)

But it was not only the governments who were thinking that way. I have a little news pamphlet that was written in the mid 1600s (it’s not dated, so I don’t know when exactly it was written) about a king (not named in the report; he is simply referred to as “The King”) just about got his head chopped off for suggesting that neighborhoods could be set aside for Catholics to live in, outside of London. Seven Anglican Bishops went to the palace with axes in their hands, ready to chop off his head, and when they arrived, he told them that he had changed his mind about allowing Catholics to live in England - it would continue to be illegal.

He was permitted to keep his head, for that.

 

[NotWorthy]

I understand your desire to show the Church in the best light, but when the Church ruled that a Christian was guilty of heresy, such as the belief that a person should be re-baptized after becoming a believer (thereby teaching that the first baptism was of no effect scripturally, contrary to the teaching of the RCC), it was hardly something that would “foment revolution” in terms of overthrowing any secular, civil authority. The Christian merely wished to follow Scripture, not overthrow a government. If the RCC had simply left such Christians alone (let the tares, if that is what the RCC thought they were, grow alongside the wheat and God would do the reaping and dividing, per Jesus’ parable), there would hardly have been any commotion about such beliefs. But the RCC required absolute obedience and subjection of all people and for Christians to adopt such beliefs was tantamount to treason. After all, if they allowed such beliefs to go unchallenged (and unstopped), their power and influence and authority would be questioned, challenged, and diminished. In the 1400’s and 1500’s the Church was more political than spiritual.

It’s funny, you try to stick to scripture and accuse us of fighting Jesus’ words.

But then you forget the episode between Peter and Ananias in Acts 5.

Where’s was Ananias’ time to repent? How about his wife?

 

[Phil12123]

It’s funny, you try to stick to scripture and accuse us of fighting Jesus’ words.

**But then you forget the episode between Peter and Ananias in Acts 5.

Where’s was Ananias’ time to repent? How about his wife?**

I’ve been talking about the RCC and how it persecuted and killed dissenters, who had no desire to “repent” of the truth they embraced that was contrary to the RCC’s false teachings. You now mention Annanias and his wife, who sinned, lying to the Holy Spirit—the opposite of the dissenters who had embraced truth. How is one at all relevant to the other? In killing the dissenters, the RCC was no better than the Pharisees who killed Jesus. The RCC was certainly not obeying any words of Jesus when it killed dissenters, was it?

 

[mercygate]

I’ve been talking about the RCC and how it persecuted and killed dissenters, who had no desire to “repent” of the truth they embraced that was contrary to the RCC’s false teachings. You now mention Annanias and his wife, who sinned, lying to the Holy Spirit—the opposite of the dissenters who had embraced truth. How is one at all relevant to the other? In killing the dissenters, the RCC was no better than the Pharisees who killed Jesus. The RCC was certainly not obeying any words of Jesus when it killed dissenters, was it?

Dissenters and heretics, by definintion do NOT “embrace the truth.”

I do not applaud killing of any kind and deplore this chapter in the history of Western Europe.

But for you to persist in failing to understand that denying the Truth is denying Christ is willfully obtuse.

In the Catholic view, the teachings of the Church are the teachings of Christ himself AS YOU PERFECTLY WELL KNOW. The fact that you do not agree with that view should not stop your brain from connecting the dots to understand the ISSUES as Catholics see them in order to grasp the gravity of heresy as the Church understands it. Let me help you:

Jesus is THE way, THE Truth, and THE Life.

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to His Church [as His Church defines “Church”] to guide it “into all the truth.”

Therefore, the teachings of The Church, guided by THE Truth, are Christ’s teachings.

To deny those teachings imperils souls because by distorting the Truth, you present a false Christ.

Presenting a false Christ is to present no Christ at all. Souls will DIE without the Truth.

Thus, spreading heresy is worse than physical murder. A head of a Catholic state would be PROTECTING HIS PEOPLE by deeming the spread of heresy worthy of capital punishment.

Now, you can disagree with the bottom line all you lilke. But that is the rationale. Protestant states saw the situation exactly the same way. In England, Catholicism was exterminated with a zeal that matches anything any Catholic state ever did to squelch dissent. This is not a “Catholic” issue. It is a matter of how political entities in the 16th & 17th Centuries viewed and responded to matters of individual conscience in religious expression.

We’ve all come a long way since then.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’ve been talking about the RCC and how it persecuted and killed dissenters, who had no desire to “repent” of the truth they embraced that was contrary to the RCC’s false teachings. You now mention Annanias and his wife, who sinned, lying to the Holy Spirit—the opposite of the dissenters who had embraced truth. How is one at all relevant to the other? In killing the dissenters, the RCC was no better than the Pharisees who killed Jesus. The RCC was certainly not obeying any words of Jesus when it killed dissenters, was it?

Phil, this is a perfect illustration of how I couldn’t trust your interpretation if my (eternal) life depended on it. Oh yeah, it does!

The Church, that Christ established, teaches the Truth, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Those who reject the Church, reject Christ. Notice, that by lying to the Church, this couple was lying to the Holy Spirit. What does that tell you about the authority and divine Guidance promised by Jesus to the Church.

Now, what part of that paragraph is un-biblical? And this same Biblical Church had the authority to strike people dead for lying to the Holy Spirit. Now, granted, I think the Church is being more forgiving today when they give heretics a chance to recant their false-hoods instead of striking them immediately dead. But I don’t want to imply that I’m second guessing our first Pope.

Who knows, he might strike me dead, too!!!

 

[Phil12123]

Dissenters and heretics, by definition do NOT "embrace the truth."

**By your definition, which undoubtedly is anyone who disagrees with anything the RCC says. So when Paul disagreed with Peter and “withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11-14), which of the two was the “dissenter” or “heretic” NOT “embracing the truth”?

Can you understand that none of us are perfect and we can have honest disagreements without either of us being branded a “heretic” though we disagree (=dissent)? Notice also that I put “heretic” in quotes when I said they embraced the truth. Someone who embraces the truth of baptizing only disciples, not infants, may be a “heretic” to you and the RCC, but they are in fact embracing the TRUTH of the Scripture and obeying the simple words of Christ, rather than fighting them.**

I do not applaud killing of any kind and deplore this chapter in the** history of Western Europe**.

Western Europe? History of the RCC, which played the central role in the killing of dissenters and “heretics” or having them killed.

But for you to persist in failing to understand that denying the Truth is denying Christ is willfully obtuse.

**For ME to persist in failing to understand that? I deny neither the TRUTH nor Christ. For 50+ pages now I have been advocating obeying the truth of Christ’s instructions in Matt. 28:19, and all I have heard is one denial of that truth after another. I suppose to call me “obtuse” is better than calling me a heretic, though others here have called my position heretical. In any event, I’m not looking for, or expecting, you to speak well of me (Luke 6:26). And I am not surprised by you condescending attitude, which I find quite similar to what is recorded in John 9:34. **

In the Catholic view, the teachings of the Church are the teachings of Christ himself AS YOU PERFECTLY WELL KNOW. The fact that you do not agree with that view should not stop your brain from connecting the dots to understand the ISSUES as Catholics see them in order to grasp the gravity of heresy as the Church understands it. Let me help you:

How kind of you to “help” my brain connect the dots. Would you like me to help you connect the dots of Matt. 28:19? Is there anything in that verse you need help with? Do you understand whom Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize? Do you see infants in there, perhaps between the lines or in the word “disciples”? Help me understand where you get infants in that verse. My mind cannot connect the dots to arrive at infants FROM WHAT JESUS SAID.

 

[Phil12123]

This is not a “Catholic” issue. It is a matter of how political entities in the 16th & 17th Centuries viewed and responded to matters of individual conscience in religious expression.

We’ve all come a long way since then.

**Yes, we have, both in respecting basic human rights and liberties including freedom of religion and conscience, and in seeing, accepting, believing, and practicing baptism of believers only, as commanded by Christ. Or at least some of us have.
**

 

[mercygate]

By your definition, which undoubtedly is anyone who disagrees with anything the RCC says. So when Paul disagreed with Peter and “withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11-14), which of the two was the “dissenter” or “heretic” NOT “embracing the truth”?

Paul’s confrontation of Peter was not about doctrine but about discipline, and, in fact, Paul was bringing Peter to task for not living up to his own teaching*. *It is not a Catholic teaching that someone, even a Pope, who fails to live up to his vocation and profession, should not be challenged. The lay woman, Catherine of Siena, was recognized as a Saint for challenging the Pope.

Can you understand that none of us are perfect and we can have honest disagreements without either of us being branded a “heretic” though we disagree (=dissent)? Notice also that I put “heretic” in quotes when I said they embraced the truth. Someone who embraces the truth of baptizing only disciples, not infants, may be a “heretic” to you and the RCC, but they are in fact embracing the TRUTH of the Scripture and obeying the simple words of Christ, rather than fighting them.

I do not recall using the word ‘heresy’ with respect to infant Baptism. Although you present it as ESSENTIAL to orthodoxy, so it is your position: naming the novelty of believer’s-only baptism as if it were ESSENTIAL, which frames the practice of the Church since its earliest days as heretical.

Western Europe? History of the RCC, which played the central role in the killing of dissenters and “heretics” or having them killed.

My point is that as soon as the protestant movement achieved political power, the governments where it achieved primacy engaged in EXACTLY the same means of handling dissent.

**For ME to persist in failing to understand that? I deny neither the TRUTH nor Christ. For 50+ pages now I have been advocating obeying the truth of Christ’s instructions in Matt. 28:19, and all I have heard is one denial of that truth after another. I suppose to call me “obtuse” is better than calling me a heretic, though others here have called my position heretical. In any event, I’m not looking for, or expecting, you to speak well of me (Luke 6:26). And I am not surprised by you condescending attitude, which I find quite similar to what is recorded in John 9:34. **

I am asking that you UNDERSTAND the Catholic position on Catholic terms. You fail to SEE the Catholic position but persist in your personal interpretation of what you see as the “plain truth of Scripture” over this teaching, when even most of your fellow Protestants REJECT.

How kind of you to “help” my brain connect the dots. Would you like me to help you connect the dots of Matt. 28:19? Is there anything in that verse you need help with? Do you understand whom Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize? Do you see infants in there, perhaps between the lines or in the word “disciples”? Help me understand where you get infants in that verse. My mind cannot connect the dots to arrive at infants FROM WHAT JESUS SAID.

That is because you are only looking at ONE dot. Talk to a good Lutheran or Methodist, who, even without relying on the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, baptize infants.

 

[minkymurph]

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.

Personally speaking, I’m always loathe to use the ‘fact’ when attempting to describe anything relating to God or the divine for the simple reason that the divine and God himself cannot be described as simply a fact and the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be confined simply a statement of fact. They are a reality which goes way beyond a fact and a reality which no one can say they have grasped the concept of in the infinite sense, bearing in mind that God is infinite. However, if we take that Jesus said baptize disciples, in what context did Our Lord himself mean it as he was the one who said it? Who does Jesus consider to be his disciple?

 

[guanophore]

By your definition, which undoubtedly is anyone who disagrees with anything the RCC says. So when Paul disagreed with Peter and “withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11-14), which of the two was the “dissenter” or “heretic” NOT “embracing the truth”?

No, thisn is not a good example. Peter was not dissenting or disagreeing with the doctrine that he himself proposed at the council of Jerusalem. He was failing to act according to the truth that had been revealed to him by the HS.

Can you understand that none of us are perfect and we can have honest disagreements without either of us being branded a “heretic” though we disagree (=dissent)? Notice also that I put “heretic” in quotes when I said they embraced the truth. Someone who embraces the truth of baptizing only disciples, not infants, may be a “heretic” to you and the RCC, but they are in fact embracing the TRUTH of the Scripture and obeying the simple words of Christ, rather than fighting them.

This is not a proper application of the term, either. Since most Protestants have never known and understood the Apostolic Teaching, it is not right to call them heretics. A heretic is someone who knew and embraced the truth, then left it.

For ME to persist in failing to understand that? I deny neither the TRUTH nor Christ. For 50+ pages now I have been advocating obeying the truth of Christ’s instructions in Matt. 28:19, and all I have heard is one denial of that truth after another.

Catholics don’t deny what you are saying. We baptize believers 100%. That is just not the ONLY kind of baptism we do.
Phil12123;2763368:

**How kind of you to “help” my brain connect the dots. Would you like me to help you connect the dots of Matt. 28:19? Is there anything in that verse you need help with? Do you understand whom Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize? Do you see infants in there, perhaps between the lines or in the word “disciples”? **

Yes.

Help me understand where you get infants in that verse. My mind cannot connect the dots to arrive at infants FROM WHAT JESUS SAID.

Catholics begin making disciples of their children before they are conceived, through their marriage vows and the openness to conception. Throughout the pregnancy, the couple prays for the developing child. When the child is born, it is brought to Jesus in faith, just as He commanded.

 

[Phil12123]

I do not recall using the word ‘heresy’ with respect to infant Baptism. Although you present it as ESSENTIAL to orthodoxy, so it is your position: naming the novelty of believer’s-only baptism as if it were ESSENTIAL, which frames the practice of the Church since its earliest days as heretical.

**So would you say it is not orthodox, but also not heresy, to say only disciples/believers should be baptized and that when a person becomes a Christian he should be baptized as a believer, whether he was bapized as an infant or not? And are you also saying that to hold such a position was never deemed heresy by the RCC, now or in the past? **

My point is that as soon as the protestant movement achieved political power, the governments where it achieved primacy engaged in EXACTLY the same means of handling dissent.****

And can we conclude from that that they were both wrong in how they handled dissent, and in the case of infant baptism, wrong in their teaching that they felt necessary to protect by such means? To me, it would seem that if someone thinks he has to go to such extremes to defend a teaching, the teaching itself must be questionable or on shaky scriptural ground that it would need force and even torture to enforce belief of it.

I am asking that you UNDERSTAND the Catholic position on Catholic terms. You fail to SEE the Catholic position but persist in your personal interpretation

of what you see as the “plain truth of Scripture” over this teaching, when even most of your fellow Protestants REJECT.

I understand that the Catholic position is not supported by the plain instructions of Jesus in Matt. 28:19 and in attempting to support it by other passages, the RCC in the final analysis ignores His words and makes them of no effect. That is not my “personal interpretation”—it is the result of simply reading and believing what HE said. I don’t add anything personal to it. I just believe it and say we should all obey it.

That is because you are only looking at ONE dot. Talk to a good Lutheran or Methodist

, who, even without relying on the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, baptize infants.

A “good Lutheran or Methodist” is not my authority for the TRUTH. God is. HE never said baptize infants. Period.

 

[Lampo]

**

HE never said baptize infants. Period.**

He also never said to write down everything He said or did.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, All, Just thought to throw this into the mix.
Psalm 50:
22 “Mark this, then, you who forget God, lest I rend, and there be none to deliver!
23 He who brings thanksgiving as his sacrifice honors me; to him who orders his way aright I will show the salvation of God!”

ON,Vs 23 We show the salvation of God, we honor our God and thank him for the child given to us in baptism, God wants no less from us.

Psalm 51:
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Acts 2
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord God calls to him.”

Psalm 51
VS. 5 = Original sin.

VS. 6 = The Holy Spirit will teach us as we grow.

VS. 7= Mark 16: 16 He who believes [and is is is is is is] baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And Matt 28: 19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Comment: God marks infants in baptism as belonging to his fold, the covenant with Abraham made manifest, the baptism of Jesus by John. God spoke, the Spirt descended and Jesus was in the water.

Peace,Onenow1

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Do you understand whom Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize? Do you see infants in there, perhaps between the lines or in the word “disciples”? Help me understand where you get infants in that verse. My mind cannot connect the dots to arrive at infants FROM WHAT JESUS SAID.

Indeed Phil, I do see infants in the word disciples. I’m having trouble figuring out how you think they are excluded from that word. Disciple doesn’t equal believer; never did. It means student and came to be used of any follower, but children (even infants) can be taught and hence are students (i.e. disciples) even before they become believers. We are baptizing and teaching disciples just like Jesus told us to.

 

[minkymurph]

In reading this post, the debate seems to hinge around the interpretation of scripture. If you believe that we are all Priests and the Holy Spirit is the interpreter, and we can all interpret for ourselves, I would have to say that makes my interpretation of scripture as valid as anyone else’s. Therefore, what would compel me to accept anyone else’s interpretation of scripture or they mine? Of course many claim to understand scripture better than others and some say that their interpretation is written in black and white and therefore must be accepted. I believe that the only thing I am compelled to believe not facts or opinions but absolute truth, in other words, what is infallible and I don’t know too many people who are prepared to state that their interpretation of scripture is infallible irrespective of how adament they are it is right. If something is infallible it is not open to doubt. If something is a fact, it is open to doubt and therefore fallible as facts can change. To explain, if a pencil is sitting on a table and I stated, ‘the pencil is on the table’ I would be justified in saying that is a fact. I someone moved the pencil off the table, my statement would no longer be a fact. However, the pencil and the table would still exist and if someone destroyed them by some means, they would still exist but in another form. It may seem like I’m talking a lot of guff here, but I’m trying to illustrate the point that the essence of baptism are water and Spirit. Intellect is not a requirement for baptism but I stand to be corrected if someone can produce a scripture which says it is. You could argue that faith is a requirement for baptism but I would say that faith is God given and God will give to whom HE chooses and not who we choose including ourselves. Therefore, I believe that through baptism, God will reveal himself to my children and because of my faith, my children will receive God given faith. I have no control over what they will do with it in later life, but I believe that by faith, faith which was given to me by God, I;ve opened the door and set them on the right path and no one else’s interpretation of scripture can change that.

 

[NotWorthy]

By your definition, which undoubtedly is anyone who disagrees with anything the RCC says. So when Paul disagreed with Peter and “withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11-14), which of the two was the “dissenter” or “heretic” NOT “embracing the truth”?

**Phil, please don’t get confused with the facts. Paul DID NOT chastise Peter for a false teaching. Paul corrected Peter for not practicing what he preached. And you know this.

Numerous Catholics have done this with the Religious leadership without facing any consequences for their actions. You may want to read up on St. Catherine when she confronted the Pope with returning to Rome from Avignon.

Can you understand that none of us are perfect and we can have honest disagreements without either of us being branded a “heretic” though we disagree (=dissent)? Notice also that I put “heretic” in quotes when I said they embraced the truth. Someone who embraces the truth of baptizing only disciples, not infants, may be a “heretic” to you

and the RCC, but they are in fact embracing the TRUTH of the Scripture and obeying the simple words of Christ, rather than fighting them.**You are ignoring one of the keystones to the Catholic faith. That is obedience to the successors of Christ.

It’s one thing to misinterpret a teaching, it’s another thing to ignore the corrections you may receive from the Church and declare that the Church is wrong. This, sadly, was not understood by the priests Arian, Martin Luther, and other heretics.

 

[NotWorthy]

How kind of you to “help” my brain connect the dots. Would you like me to help you connect the dots of Matt. 28:19? Is there anything in that verse you need help with? Do you understand whom Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize? Do you see infants in there, perhaps between the lines or in the word “disciples”? Help me understand where you get infants in that verse. My mind cannot connect the dots to arrive at infants FROM WHAT JESUS SAID.

Phil, you laughed, congratulated me for turning your argument against you, and then went on to the next subject the last time I posted in this similar vein…

But I need to ask you, when was the last time you went to a man for the forgiveness of sins. Christ gave some men this authority, so obviously he wanted them to use it. Have you followed His words on this issue?

 

[jmcrae]

Indeed Phil, I do see infants in the word disciples. I’m having trouble figuring out how you think they are excluded from that word. Disciple doesn’t equal believer; never did. It means student and came to be used of any follower, but children (even infants) can be taught and hence are students (i.e. disciples) even before they become believers. We are baptizing and teaching disciples just like Jesus told us to.

True; when a Christian mother sings a lullaby to her child that mentions the fact that Jesus and the Angels are watching over her little one, she is already discipling him in the Christian faith.

The child is already imbibing the truth of the Gospel together with his mother’s milk, so what reason could there possibly be not to baptize him?

I have never understood this idea that we have to wait until the child gets into drugs and premarital sex, destroys his life, and then realizes that becoming a Christian is a better idea, before we begin to disciple them and bring them into the Church through baptism.

Why not circumvent all that trouble, by discipling them and baptizing them right from the very beginning? A child who belongs to Jesus from birth is going to have a much happier life here on this earth, as well as having the opportunity to go to Heaven when he dies, and to me, it seems as though a truly loving parent would want that, rather than to see their child have to sin and suffer before they can be allowed to start learning about Jesus.

One of the most beautiful conversion stories I ever heard was from a Sister who was taught from birth to say her prayers by rote in the morning when she woke up, and in the evening when she went to bed. One morning when she was about seven years old, she listened to herself praying her Morning Offering, began to consider the meaning of the words that she was saying, and fell immediately, deeply, and madly in love with Jesus Christ at that very moment. She said her love affair with Jesus has never ended, which was why she chose to be spiritually married to Him in the Religious life of a nun or Sister.

Right after her story, they had the story of a priest who had gone through many trials in his childhood and young adulthood where he had committed many sins (his parents chose not to baptize him when he was an infant: they said, “Let it be his own choice”), until finally “hitting bottom” and realizing that he needed Jesus and he needed the Sacraments of the Church. It was a long time before he was able to recover fully from all the damage he did to himself, and right then and there, I thought, if I ever have children, I want them to have the life of that Sister, rather than the life of that poor priest. Meaning that I would baptize them and disciple them right from the very beginning, and teach them the Way of Jesus before they ever even have a chance to be enticed by other things.

 

[minkymurph]

jmcrae - this is a lovely post.

 

[mercygate]

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.

Personally speaking, I’m always loathe to use the ‘fact’ when attempting to describe anything relating to God or the divine for the simple reason that the divine and God himself cannot be described as simply a fact and the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be confined simply a statement of fact. They are a reality which goes way beyond a fact and a reality which no one can say they have grasped the concept of in the infinite sense, bearing in mind that God is infinite. However, if we take that Jesus said baptize disciples, in what context did **Our Lord himself mean it as he was the one who said it? Who does Jesus consider to be his disciple?/**quote]Not sure which side of the table you’re on but this is precisely the question. We accept as “disciples” those who are brought to Christ in the arms of their parents and sponsors.