Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[Grace_Seeker]

when you are baptised we all become disciples of Christ.

Do we?

Are there not some who were already disciples before their baptism? Indeed, this is one of the primar reason that many adults seek baptism, to publically declare their discipleship (which exists even before they are baptized).

 

[jmcrae]

Do we?

Are there not some who were already disciples before their baptism? Indeed, this is one of the primar reason that many adults seek baptism, to publically declare their discipleship (which exists even before they are baptized).

An unbaptized adult who is learning about the Christian faith is called a Catechumen. (kat uh KYEW’ min) - one becomes a Disciple after Baptism.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

An unbaptized adult who is learning about the Christian faith is called a Catechumen. (kat uh KYEW’ min) - one becomes a Disciple after Baptism.

Maybe by your definition. But I don’t think that is the way the word was used by Matthew.

 

[minkymurph]

I would agree that one is baptized into discipleship. There are believers who are not baptized but I think discipleship is a step father than someone who believes in Christ and what he taught, a greater fulfillment of faith as baptism opens the way for greater fulfillment of faith.

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe by your definition. But I don’t think that is the way the word was used by Matthew.

Likely not, since he was writing about followers of Jesus during Jesus’ own lifetime, before there was such a thing as the Catechumenate. (He was actually writing for the Catechumens of his own time, though, and he was certainly aware of the Catechumenate.)

Keep in mind that Jesus’ disciples were all baptized by John for repentance from sin prior to joining His group.

 

[NotWorthy]

Discipleship is following Christ’s commandments. One of them is you need to be baptized to inherit eternal life. So maybe if one intends to be baptized, they can be considered a disciple, but not until they come not only to believe but to obey.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Likely not, since he was writing about followers of Jesus during Jesus’ own lifetime, before there was such a thing as the Catechumenate. (He was actually writing for the Catechumens of his own time, though, and he was certainly aware of the Catechumenate.)

Keep in mind that Jesus’ disciples were all baptized by John for repentance from sin prior to joining His group.

Discipleship is following Christ’s commandments. One of them is you need to be baptized to inherit eternal life. So maybe if one intends to be baptized, they can be considered a disciple, but not until they come not only to believe but to obey.

I still just like to go with what the simple word “student”. Recall that the word we translate from Matthew (and all the other places it is used) as “disciple” is actually a very common Greek word, “mathetes”. It was used not only by Jesus and the New Testament writers but by many other people in that day. And its meaning is not derived from its usage in the scripture, but rather its meaning in the scriptures is derived from its usage in everyday parlance. (I.e. the biblical writers might give their own emphasis to a word, but they couldn’t change its basic meaning and still have people understand them.)

And the word we are speaking of goes back in usage to Homer and beyond. It ancient Greek it had to do with the process by which one acquires theoretical knowledge. In Socrates’ day a person was considered a “mathetes” (or pupil) only when in the presence of his “didaskalos” (master or teacher). But Socrates never wanted to have any “mathetes” and didn’t consider himself a “didaskalos” because he desired those who learned from him, to learn how to think independently of him as well. Thus it was that those who learned from Greek philosphers became known as "akolouthos (followers) as much as “mathetes” (students).

By the time of the New Testament, the word “mathetes” in its most common secular usage simply means “student”. But I think that in reading the New Testament in context that one can see that the writers goes back and pick up on the concept of a “mathetes” as one who is totally attached to someone as if apprenticing from them how to become like them. This mirrors the relationship between Jewish rabbis and their students.

Now that is obviously a process. One does not become like Jesus just by virtue of being baptized. Rather, in baptism one gets attached to Jesus in both a symbolic and spiritual way, and then grows in grace to become more and more Christ-like.

So, I respectfully disagree that discipleship is as simply as following Christ’s commands or obedience to his word. I think it goes beyond mere behaviors to the spiritual core of an individual. Do we do more than just mimick Christ outwardly, do we actually seek to in some measure ourselves inwardly be transformed into one who carries the image of Christ within his/her own soul. In otherwords, I think that discipleship is ultimately about sanctification and is a life-long process, not a one time happening.

And while you may see that as starting only at the moment of baptism, I see it starting any time a person becomes attached to Jesus – be it through the sacraments or by a simply act of faith and personal commitment. We become students of Jesus and remain so throughout our lifetime. Graduation being our own glorification when we enter into God’s presence in heaven.

 

[rinnie]

i guess im not sure what you are asking. But in order to become a disciple of Jesus Christ you must first be baptised In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Now im not speaking for all catholics but when i was born my mother wouldnt even take us out of the house untill we were baptised. Same with my children that was the first thing you did. Now think of it this way, now this is my point of view. To become a child of God you become baptised that is giving their soul to God. Now in my opinion and mine only you first need to have God in you heart and soul before you could every even think of sharing the good news with others. Now that is what baptism is the entering of the Holy Spirit. Now for some it is very strong right off the bat. for others it takes time, and grows with time. Thats how some people go to church live their life whatever go on. Never really feel the need to search deeper. Now later on in life they start feeling the need to learn more about God and try to get closer. Thats when you know that the Holy Spirit that you received at Baptism is getting stronger. Now please i dont want to debate and im not good at preaching Gods word this is just my opinion and i hope it will help you to understand more what you are asking.

 

[guanophore]

** That’s great, but why do you do that, i.e., believe and practice believer’s baptism 100%? Because Jesus said to, right? And the only** place He said to do that is in Matt. 28:19-20. And what I’ve been saying and saying and saying again is, believer’s baptism is the only kind of baptism that He said to do in that passage. He never said to baptize nonbelievers or infants.=

No one is disputing that with you, Phil. Catholics form doctrine based on the WHOLE teaching of Christ. We don’t lift one verse out of one book addressing one occasion and use that one expression to define everything. We look at ALL the revelation that is found in scripture, and in the Sacred Oral Tradition, and in the Magesterium. This verse is taken together with other verses about baptism and Jesus’ teaching (such as "suffer the little children to come unto me) for a complete understanding of the Teaching.

** How do you know what an Apostle taught, and how can you verify that he, in fact, did teach it, if you don’t have a tape recording of a sermon he preached, or a copy of a book he wrote? For example, someone who is now deceased, say, Jerry Falwell, is claimed by someone who knew him, say, Mr. Bill Smith, to have taught XYZ. If I don’t have a book written by JF which teaches XYZ, and I don’t have a sermon tape which has JF saying or teaching XYZ, how do I really know JF ever taught XYZ? BS could say “I heard JF say XYZ,” but is that enough? No book, no recording. How do I know JF ever taught XYZ?**

Because we have the Apostolic Succession, which has been guarded by the infallible HS and will remain in all truth until the end of the Age, just as Jesus promised. We do not believe that Jesus is to weak to keep His promises.

** The Didache teaches infant baptism? Can you quote it? When was it written and by whom?**

This Didache is a first century document with instruction about liturgical practices. The word means “The Teaching” and it represents the practices of the time.

newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Although it mentions baptism, I am not aware that infant baptisms are mentioned.

 

[guanophore]

** What household** a person is born into and who is in that household—Christians or devil worshippers—does not determine whether that person is a believer or a nonbeliever. It would certainly have a great influence over whether the infant becomes a believer in Christ or not. But that is all—an influence. Until each infant has the capacity to believe and then actually does believe, he or she is not a believer. That is true based on any rational, logical definition of “believer” that I am aware of.

Catholics believe that Jesus intended our children to be “influenced” toward His Kingdom, that we bring Him the little children, and that we teach them the precepts of the Kingdom from the time they are born. It is true, however, that if that child does not, at some point, make a personal confession of faith, all that “influence” will have little avail.

** You are stretching the incident of John the Baptist to mean what? That all infants in their mothers’ wombs are believers? Is that how you interpret Scripture? Is that what the Magisterium teaches, or just you?**

What do you mean “stretching the incident of John the baptist”?? First of all, whatever do you mean by “incident”?! do you not accept the prophesy that John would be filled with the HS even from his mother’s womb? Do you not believe that this passage describes the infilling of John by the HS? How is that a stretch?

The passage demonstrates that God can, and will, fill an infant with the HS, even before it is born.

**

Who says I even think the RCC existed**

300 years before the NT was canonized?

This is not about the RCC, but the Apostolic Churches. All 22 rites of the Catholic Church baptize infants, not just the Roman. All the Orthodox baptize infants, and they have nothing to do with Rome. This is the teaching that was received from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

** God can do anything, including “imbuing” grace without personal awareness. That is not the issue. The issue is, does God have infants come into this world as believers or as simply infants believing nothing until they reach a maturity sufficient for the child to have the capacity to understand he is a sinner and in need of a Savior, that Jesus is that Savior Who died for his sins, and that he needs to accept Him and believe in Him for his soul’s salvation. **

This is an absurd notion Phil. We don’t allow our children to “believe nothing until they reach a maturity sufficient” about anything else! Why would we LEAVE OUT the most IMPORTANT part of their development? It may be that you have no experience with children whatsoever, so you don’t know that they must be taught from day one what to believe, and how to act. We don’t feed them kool aid and sodas from the time they can suckle, or candy from the time they can grasp food. We don’t allow them to wreak havoc in the house and with other people due to their lack of social skills and manners. We force them to go to school, and wear clothes (not necessarily in that order).

** Until he does that, he is not a “disciple” that should be baptized. That is what I conclude from WHAT JESUS SAID. He said repentance and remission of sins was to be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47). There is no indication that was to be preached to infants. The audience of all the passages of the Great Commission is sinners who need to repent and believe the Gospel, not infants.**

Clearly we have a difference of opinion about what a “disciple” (learner) is and what Jesus thought. Catholics believe that Jesus taught the children were to be brought to him, not “waitn until they have maturity sufficient”. He also taught that anyone who does not receive the Kingdom like a child will not enter. These passages, along with His filling John the Baptist “even from His mothers womb” with the spirit encourage us to bring up our children in the Lord.

Catholics believe that circumcision is a type and forshadowing of baptism, and that therefore, it should not be withheld from infants.

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.Col 2:11-12

 

[Grace_Seeker]

i guess im not sure what you are asking. But in order to become a disciple of Jesus Christ you must first be baptised In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.

I take it that you are meaning to state the ordinary way that such discipleship is recognized and entered into in the Catholic church today. Surely you don’t mean to imply that this is absolutely the only way that any person can now or has ever been able to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. The scriptures themselves relate to us a different story in that the original disciples simply heard Jesus’ call to follow him, and responding to that call left their nets and followed. At that point, they were disciples – no baptism, no teaching (not that they wouldn’t later experience these things), nothing but having attached themselves to Jesus.

So, there are ordinary and unordinary ways by which people enter into Christian discipleship. To take the ordinary way, and then define discipleship as that (and especially that exclusively) is to work backward. The proper way is to define what it means to be a disciple (and I believe I have in my prior post – colloquially the word simply means student, in a more techinical sense a disciple of Christ is anyone attached to Jesus, the means of that attachment not being an issue) and then to help determine the means by which people might become disciples. The Catholic church seems to recognizes two ways:
(1)The church recognizes as disciples those children who are baptized as infants and then raised in the teaching of the church.
(2)The church also recognizes as disciples those older persons who become Cathecumens and receive teaching followed by baptism.

That is all well and good. Surely both are ways that people become attached to Jesus. But isn’t it interesting that by such a definition an adult who declares his intention to be a follower of Jesus is not recognized as a disciple while an infant who will have no cognitive recollection of the event is recognized as such. I would suggest that the moment the Cathecumen says that he/she desires to enter that process that they have become students of Jesus and are already disciples. Whether such disicpleship is recognized by the Church isn’t really the issue, Jesus knows them as his and that is the only thing that really matters.

I sometimes think that we in the Church today are even better at creating hoops for the people of God to jump through than the pharisees that Jesus took to task for such things were.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe by your definition. But I don’t think that is the way the word was used by Matthew.

I agree with you. I think that a disciple is a learner, which is the same as a catechumen. We know that many were baptized, and followed Jesus as disciples, then turned away from him. So being baptized does not necessarily result in becoming a believer, and being a disciple doesn not necessarily result in becoming (or remaining) a believer.

 

[jmcrae]

I take it that you are meaning to state the ordinary way that such discipleship is recognized and entered into in the Catholic church today. Surely you don’t mean to imply that this is absolutely the only way that any person can now or has ever been able to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. The scriptures themselves relate to us a different story in that the original disciples simply heard Jesus’ call to follow him, and responding to that call left their nets and followed. At that point, they were disciples – no baptism, no teaching (not that they wouldn’t later experience these things), nothing but having attached themselves to Jesus.

They had been followers of John, previously, and they had been baptized by John. In one of the Gospel accounts (I’ve forgotten which one) it is John himself who explains to his own disciples who Jesus is, and then it is after that, that Jesus calls them to follow Him. But they already knew who Jesus was, when He came to their fishing boats and called them to Him.

They didn’t just drop their nets to follow some random stranger - John had already explained to them who He was, and John had already baptized them.

(1)The church recognizes as disciples those children who are baptized as infants and then raised in the teaching of the church.
(2)The church also recognizes as disciples those older persons who become Cathecumens and receive teaching followed by baptism.

Yes, from the later part of the Apostolic Age (after about 50 AD) until now, the Catechumenate has been the ordinary means by which unbaptized adults enter the Church, and the children of Catholic families have typically (though not always) been baptized in infancy.

That is all well and good. Surely both are ways that people become attached to Jesus. But isn’t it interesting that by such a definition an adult who declares his intention to be a follower of Jesus is not recognized as a disciple while an infant who will have no cognitive recollection of the event is recognized as such. I would suggest that the moment the Cathecumen says that he/she desires to enter that process that they have become students of Jesus and are already disciples. Whether such disicpleship is recognized by the Church isn’t really the issue, Jesus knows them as his and that is the only thing that really matters.

Catechumens are certainly recognized as learners - we give them homework, take attendance, and everything. But they aren’t officially “sent forth” to evangelize the world until after they receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Catechumens are certainly recognized as learners - we give them homework, take attendance, and everything. But they aren’t officially “sent forth” to evangelize the world until after they receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Did you know that the our word “apostle” comes from “apostolos” which is a Greek word meaning “envoy” or “ambassador”? Apostles are people who are sent out. Though today we normally only think of those who had been disciples of Jesus and witnesses of the resurrection as being “apostolos”, in point of fact, any sent person (or even object) can be properly called by that term – or at least that was the common usage of the phrase in the first century outside of the Church. It is for that reason that when Jesus disciples are sent forth by him that they begin to be called “apostolos” and no longer “mathetes”, because their role has changed from that of student to ambassador.

Though it would require getting used to, perhaps we should more properly term those that are “sent forth” as apostles and those who are cast in the role of “learner” as disciples? I do think it would be more in keeping with the terms as they were used by the New Testament Church.

 

[rinnie]

I take it that you are meaning to state the ordinary way that such discipleship is recognized and entered into in the Catholic church today. Surely you don’t mean to imply that this is absolutely the only way that any person can now or has ever been able to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. The scriptures themselves relate to us a different story in that the original disciples simply heard Jesus’ call to follow him, and responding to that call left their nets and followed. At that point, they were disciples – no baptism, no teaching (not that they wouldn’t later experience these things), nothing but having attached themselves to Jesus.

So, there are ordinary and unordinary ways by which people enter into Christian discipleship. To take the ordinary way, and then define discipleship as that (and especially that exclusively) is to work backward. The proper way is to define what it means to be a disciple (and I believe I have in my prior post – colloquially the word simply means student, in a more techinical sense a disciple of Christ is anyone attached to Jesus, the means of that attachment not being an issue) and then to help determine the means by which people might become disciples. The Catholic church seems to recognizes two ways:
(1)The church recognizes as disciples those children who are baptized as infants and then raised in the teaching of the church.
(2)The church also recognizes as disciples those older persons who become Cathecumens and receive teaching followed by baptism.

That is all well and good. Surely both are ways that people become attached to Jesus. But isn’t it interesting that by such a definition an adult who declares his intention to be a follower of Jesus is not recognized as a disciple while an infant who will have no cognitive recollection of the event is recognized as such. I would suggest that the moment the Cathecumen says that he/she desires to enter that process that they have become students of Jesus and are already disciples. Whether such disicpleship is recognized by the Church isn’t really the issue, Jesus knows them as his and that is the only thing that really matters.

I sometimes think that we in the Church today are even better at creating hoops for the people of God to jump through than the pharisees that Jesus took to task for such things were.

Again i am confused what you are asking but i will go back to scriptures, Jesus was himself baptised by John the Baptist in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Now if you are asking if Catholic are the only people that can be followers of Christ my opinion is no. And if catholics are the only People who can be disciples of Christ NO. I cant answer that. Im not God. the only thing I know is as long as you are baptised in the Name of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit. they are baptised in Jesus Christ. you cant be baptised twice. that is what i believed the question to be. And if you are not baptised in the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit you cant be a disciple of Christ. but please ask you pastor on sunday he can tell you what you need to know.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Again i am confused what you are asking .

I am not asking anything. I was merely responding to some statements that I believed were well intended, but not entirely accurate. For instance:

when you are baptised we all become disciples of Christ.

I questioned that statement. Not because I dispute that baptized people, including infants, are disciples, but because the word “become” implies that they were not disciples prior to their baptism. I happen to believe that the word disciple, in the generic sense, simply means “student”. I believe the New Advent Encyclopedia backs up my view, stating:

This term [disciple] is commonly applied to one who is learning any art or science from one distinguished by his accomplishments.

Now when speaking of a person being a disciple of Christ, even then it does not have to mean that such a person has completed baptism. Again from the New Advent Encyclopedia:

The New Testament use the word disciple in the sense of pupil, adherent, one who continues in the Master’s word.

By such a definition unbaptized catechumens would qualify as disciples.

What seems extraordinary to our modern notions is that the catechumens themselves put off their baptisms for many years, sometimes even till their last illness. Constantine the Great is an example of this extreme delay. St. Ambrose, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. John Chrysostom were not baptized till after their thirtieth year. A question much discussed was the fate of those who died in this stage. As we have seen, they were looked upon as Christians[emphasis mine], but not as belonging to the “faithful”, because the cleansing waters of baptism had not been poured over their souls.

Now, how can a person be looked upon as a Christian, but not understood to have been a disciple of Christ? The two concepts must go hand-in-hand. The whole theory of baptism of desire is that the person is already belongs to Christ, even though unbaptized, by their desire to be baptized - this is the very essence of what it means to be a disciple.

Hence there are persons who – by virtue of being a student of the ways of Christ, learning about what it means to be a Christian, and who desire to attach themselves to Christ – who are in fact disciples before they experience baptism and thus do not become disciples at that point in time for they already are disciples or they would not be submitting themselves to baptism.

You also made another statement that I suggest to you is what we find to be generally true to day, but again it is not exclusively true:

But in order to become a disciple of Jesus Christ you must first be baptised In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit…

Certainly, everyone who is so baptized is a disciple. But it does not therefore follow that no one can become a disciple unless they have been baptized this way. Some examples of disciples who were not baptized this way include:

1. Jesus’ own disciples. Some were baptized by John. John’s baptism was a baptism for repentance, not in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”.
2. Paul. Was saved on the road to Damascus. I believe he became a disciple at that point in time. The only people with Paul were two Jews who were NOT followers of Jesus and therefore would not have baptized Paul. Though he may have been baptized later (I don’t think we are told that), he would have already been a disciple at that time if he was later baptized.
3. As expressed above, those catechumens from ages past who lived a Christians life as a follower of Jesus putting off their baptism till as close to their death as possible. Yes, eventually they would be baptized in the name “of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, but again according to the teachings of the Catholic church they were already disciples at the time of their baptism. In fact they were technically considered “Christians”, but not among “the faithful” until their baptism. (Again, my source being the New Advent Encyclopedia.)

So, I understand what you are saying. And I don’t really have any questions of you. But I suggest that you might want to ask a few questions of yourself. Remember the normal manner that a person becomes a disciples is not the only way. I think there are more disciples out there in this world than you may realize. Of course, on the other hand, I’m not really sure that everyone who has been baptized is serious about being a follower of Christ or a learner or adherent of the Christian faith. So, it may be that there are also a lot less disciples than we might think if we looked only at baptismal records.

So, rinnie, I’m suggesting to you and to others that we not equate baptism with discipleship, because I don’t think that they are synonymous in either scriptural definition nor historical experience.

 

[mercygate]

Did you know that the our word “apostle” comes from “apostolos” which is a Greek word meaning “envoy” or “ambassador”? Apostles are people who are sent out. Though today we normally only think of those who had been disciples of Jesus and witnesses of the resurrection as being “apostolos”, in point of fact, any sent person (or even object) can be properly called by that term – or at least that was the common usage of the phrase in the first century outside of the Church. It is for that reason that when Jesus disciples are sent forth by him that they begin to be called “apostolos” and no longer “mathetes”, because their role has changed from that of student to ambassador.

Though it would require getting used to, perhaps we should more properly term those that are “sent forth” as apostles and those who are cast in the role of “learner” as disciples? I do think it would be more in keeping with the terms as they were used by the New Testament Church.

Indeed, although Catholics distinguish the Apostolic office (bishop) as the fullness of the ministerial priesthood, we all share in the priestly and apostolic mission. The dismissal at Mass, oddly translated, “The Mass is ended; go in peace” is, in Latin, “Ite, missa est.”

(loosely but more correctly): Go: you are sent.

 

[mercygate]

Again i am confused what you are asking but i will go back to scriptures,** Jesus was himself baptised by John the Baptist in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.**

rinnie, ya gotta THINK before you pull the trigger. John could not possibly have baptized in the Name of the Holy Trinity.

 

[rinnie]

rinnie, ya gotta THINK before you pull the trigger. John could not possibly have baptized in the Name of the Holy Trinity.

yes he did, go to matthew the baptism of Jesus, chapter 3 remember John didnt want to baptise Jesus. The chapter before you hear John saying he can only baptise with water the one comming is mightier than i. There you are correct but now continue John said i need to be baptised by you. what did Jesus say to John ALLOW IT NOW.FOR THUS IT IS FITTING FOR US, AGAIN THE WORD US. TO FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS. Then he allowed him. Then im sure you know scriptures thats when the Holy Spirit descended into Jesus. That is when The Father Son and now Holy Spirit came into effect. remember allow it now. now also getting back you the question of being a disciple of Jesus Now faith is necessary for salvation. He who believes and is baptised will be saved mk 16:16. ok now the title Lord indicates divine sovereignty to confess or invoke Jesus as Lord is to believe in his divinity. no one can say Jesus is Lord except through the Holy Spirit. (1 cor 12:3. Now from the beginning the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the churches living faith. It finds its expression in the rule of baptismal faith, Now what happens when you are baptised You also like we just read have the Father son and HOLY SPIRIT descend into you. Now do you agree with that. ok now how can you confess Jesus is Lord if you arent baptised then how else can the Holy Spirit come upon you. Now i will agree in the old test. yes things were different. but now remember Jesus changed alot to things. He came and fullfilled the old test. and taught the new. are you picking up what im sitting down here. now this is just what i believe to be true but if i am wrong please let me know. like i said i am not here to teach and i have alot to learn but hopefully i can help share what i know too. have a great day