Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[rinnie]

ok i am either going to make this worse or hopefully help you understand the way is was taught to me. Now please before we start these are my words. when we are born we get baptised right. ok yes we are babys. So lets say we are disciples of Jesus or lets say students lets not get hung up with a word. Ok now you are right in one thing yes a baby does not understand. now that is why we have ccd. You start leaning about God as a child. kindergarden and up, now that would make you a student right, now then you make your first Communion. that takes time. i forget what grade its been so long ago 3 or 4 cant remember. now you continue ccd. then about 7 or 8 th grade you make your confirmation. now you had quite alot of study under you belt now right. So see its not Baptism and out. Baptism is just the start. thats why we have Godparents to make sure that this child gets his instruction. Now at confirmation it is the last step. Now at confirmation the Church feels that you have been taught the religion and the right way. now its up to you to continue your faith. Your parents more or less did their part the best they could. Catholics are accused of never having Bible Study then what was i doing the from 5 years on at ccd. what is the difference from bible study and ccd. No disrespect to anyone but hope that helps to point out another view.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, All
Originally Posted by rinnie
okay what i mean is this. first the image of heaven is torn open Heaven stands open above Jesus. His communion of will with the Father his fulillment of righteousness opens heaven which is essentially the place where GOds will is perfectly fulflled. next proclamation of Jesus mission by GOD. (not what JEsus does who is is) Finally in this scene together with the son we encounter the Father and the Holy Spirit. THe mystery of the Trinitarian God is beginning to emerge even though its depts can be fully revealed only when Jesus journey is completed. i guess maybe my words shouldnt have been came into effect i guess i should have said emerge. Trust me this isnt my words im not that smart. And also as being a catholic i am only told to read the bible not translate it. that has to be thru the Holy Spirit. Now after Jesus was baptised that is when it became The Father SOn and Holy spirit thats when he instructed his twelve how to baptise. But as i said only after the Masters own Baptism. But it wasnt revealed until after his death. which im sure you know.

I think rinnie’s understanding of baptism is right on the mark !
Infants are learners of the word as much as adults, even more so, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16). I believe this statement from Jesus is a directive, start teaching children, it could’nt be more clear do not withold. ] At the time of baptism nothing will interfere with the blessing of Jesus, and the request of the parents to give this child faith in Jesus. So in light of Jesus last words, to make disciples and baptise them, it just makes so much sense to me, that Jesus wants the parents to make that commitment for the child, to be blessed.I think we have to answer the question why would we withold a blessing that Jesus commanded?

As a side note when Jesus blesses the children I don’t think, at least in the case of infants, that they understood what Jesus was doing,but they certainly were blessed spiritualy by the Word.

Have a nice day.
Peace, OneNow1

 

[Grace_Seeker]

**So, how or when does that sanctification, a life-long process, begin? When we “become attached to Jesus”? How do you think that occurs? Through the sacraments? Or through a simple act of faith and personal commitment? Or either/both? When does an infant “become attached to Jesus”?

Also, you or someone said an infant can be a disciple or student. Then what was Jesus referring to when He said to “make** disciples” of all nations? Make a baby? If a baby is already a disciple at birth, what do we do? Just start talking to him/her, whether he/she understands anything we say or not?

I don’t know if you are being “dense on purpose” as my wife describes me from time to time, or really just don’t get it. But of course I don’t think that Jesus is saying that we are to make babies in order to make disciples – though I certainly have been at a few churches that had this as their preferred form of church growth. Making disciples is simply helping anyone we come into contact with to become attached to Jesus. If it is an adult, we ask them to commit his/her life to Jesus, and in doing so to be baptized. If it is a child (and we have some say in that child’s life), we make the commitment of raising them in the church and in doing so have them baptized. I don’t see any reason from a human or institutional church perspective to treat a child any different than one would an adult, nor of treating an adult any different than one would a child – excepting of course that parents do make some decisions for their children that adults are going to make for themselves.

As to how that impacts their spiritual relationship with God, I don’t have the slightest idea. Nor do I care. Of course I care for their spiritual relationship with God, but as I only have control over what I can see and know, I primarily care that my behaviors of raising the child in the faith and wooing the adult into the faith will benefit them and what I hope will be a lifelong relationship with God. The rest of it, exactly the spiritual forces at work that bring this about, I simply trust to God to take care of. I’ll do my part and he will do his. And, as I understand it, among the things that are included in my part is that God has asked me to have people who are being raised as disciples of Christ to be baptized. And so I will. I would not baptize someone who was not going to be raised that way or commit themselves to living that way.

As for when sanctification begins, I am not the one who starts the process. God starts it. And God starts it when he moves in the individual’s life to justify them, cleansing them (as John writes in his epistle) from all unrighteousness. But in another sense, God starts that process even before the moment of our justification when he awakens within us a recognition that we need him and begins to shower on us his prevenient grace that comes even before the justifying grace found in the moment of salvation and begins to draw us unto himself. Baptism, in my understanding, is in fact a celebration of this act of God’s prevenient grace that he claims us for himself even before we know how to say “yes” to him. Thus, a child who is baptized and comes to “believing” faith later in life and still look back on that day and recall that God claimed them and was working to accomplish their salvation even when they were yet unaware of it, and give thanks for their baptism.

 

[jmcrae]

**I think Grace Seeker would disagree, but I will let him speak for himself.

So, if an unbaptized baby is a pagan (certainly a nonbeliever), it sounds like you think he is lost and on the road to hell until he is baptized, even though he has not reached the age of reason. **

Do you think that any non-Christian can automatically go to Heaven? It is not our actions that save us; it is our relationship with Christ.

We first enter into a relationship with Christ by being baptized using the Trinitarian formula.

But once he is baptized, say, at 1 day old, he is transformed into a “student” or “learner” or “disciple” and is on the road to heaven, though still a nonbeliever.

 

[MariaG]

So, if an unbaptized baby is a pagan (certainly a nonbeliever), it sounds like you think he is lost and on the road to hell until he is baptized, even though he has not reached the age of reason.

But once he is baptized, say, at 1 day old, he is transformed into a “student” or “learner” or “disciple” and is on the road to heaven, though still a nonbeliever.

And you think that is what the Scriptures teach? Or just your church?

The Catholic Church prays for the Lord’s mercy for unbaptized infants.

We do not know the fate of unbaptized infants for scripture is does not say, nor does Tradition.

Hence the reason that we teach the following.

[1261](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1261.htm’) As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

64 Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Do you think that any non-Christian can automatically go to Heaven? It is not our actions that save us; it is our relationship with Christ.

We first enter into a relationship with Christ by being baptized using the Trinitarian formula.

Yes - just as a man and woman become a couple when they make a decision to date one another exclusively.

This is the first step to marriage, but they are not yet married, and there is no guarantee that they ever will be married. But we can guarantee that they won’t get married, if they don’t take that first step of entering into a relationship.

How we first enter into a relationship with Jesus is by being baptized.

Interesting way of saying one thing in one sentence and another in the next:

A man and a woman become a couple when the agree to date, but we don’t enter into a relationship with Christ accept through baptism, which you made anlagous to marriage. So, exactly what type of non-relationship is dating? It isn’t marriage, but it most certainly a relationship, and one can have a relationship with Christ before baptism as well. Indeed, for those who wait till later to be baptized, I think thay might even have a common-law marriage.

So, is the first step of the relationship that which you refer to in this sentence:

But we can guarantee that they won’t get married, if they don’t take that first step of entering into a relationship.

Or that which you refer to in this sentence:

We first enter into a relationship with Christ by being baptized using the Trinitarian formula.

 

[jmcrae]

Interesting way of saying one thing in one sentence and another in the next:

A man and a woman become a couple when the agree to date, but we don’t enter into a relationship with Christ accept through baptism, which you made anlagous to marriage. So, exactly what type of non-relationship is dating? It isn’t marriage, but it most certainly a relationship, and one can have a relationship with Christ before baptism as well. Indeed, for those who wait till later to be baptized, I think thay might even have a common-law marriage.

So, is the first step of the relationship that which you refer to in this sentence:

Or that which you refer to in this sentence:

Baptism is the first of three Sacraments of Initiation into the Church. The other two are Confirmation and First Holy Communion.

Skip the rest of what I said, because it’s more confusing than edifying.

The point I was trying to make was that Jesus is not our “buddy buddy” - our pal from down the street that we like to hang around with in our spare time.

Our relationship with Christ is analogous to the kinds of relationships we have when we are joining families together, and when children are being adopted - the kinds of relationships that we recognize - no, not recogize - create - with formal ceremonies.

A wedding creates a family. It doesn’t recognize a family - there was no family, before the wedding.

An adoption creates a familial relationship where there was none before. The child belonged to no one, until the adoption ceremony took place. It is during the adoption ceremony that he becomes a son - that she becomes a daughter.

Same with the Sacraments of Initiation. They actually create the relationships that they signify.

 

[jmcrae]

Indeed, for those who wait till later to be baptized, I think thay might even have a common-law marriage.

Common-law marriage, of course, is a mortal sin, and I think it is also a mortal sin to delay baptism if there is no good reason to delay, so it actually works out to be a good analogy, in this particular case.

 

[Phil12123]

Making disciples is simply helping anyone we come into contact with to become attached to Jesus. If it is an adult, we ask them to commit his/her life to Jesus, and in doing so to be baptized. **If it is a child **(and we have some say in that child’s life), we make the commitment of raising them in the church and in doing so have them baptized. I don’t see any reason from a human or institutional church perspective to treat a child any different than one would an adult, nor of treating an adult any different than one would a child – excepting of course that parents do make some decisions for their children that adults are going to make for themselves.

**I’m not sure why you like to use language not used by Jesus or the Apostles, like “help someone *become attached *to Jesus.” Is that supposed to be like, win a soul or gain a convert, or is it much short of that…just help someone, short of their becoming a believer, to head in that direction? I suspect it is the latter, since you include infants who cannot believe but only head in that direction with proper raising.

In any event, for the infants, you make a commitment to raising them in the church and “in doing so have them baptized.” Your commitment to do that, of course, says nothing of their actually ever coming to faith in Christ. So if they never do, what was the purpose of their baptism? To make them Christians or non-pagans (as someone here believes), though they don’t believe in Christ, and never do? Or to make it more likely they might some day believe in Christ, though they never do? I am trying to understand your position, vis-a-vis Christ’s instructions in Matt. 28:19, and your belief that the “disciples” He instructed to be baptized need not be believers.**

As to how that impacts their spiritual relationship with God, I don’t have the slightest idea. Nor do I care. Of course I care for their spiritual relationship with God, but as I only have control over what I can see and know, I primarily care that my behaviors of raising the child in the faith and wooing the adult into the faith will benefit them and what I hope will be a lifelong relationship with God. The rest of it, exactly the spiritual forces at work that bring this about, I simply trust to God to take care of. I’ll do my part and he will do his. And, as I understand it, among the things that are included in my part is that God has asked me to have people who are being raised as disciples of Christ to be baptized. And so I will. I** would not baptize someone who was not going to be raised that way **or commit themselves to living that way.

So, in your view, a “disciple” is a nonbeliever who someone else has made a commitment to raise in the church, unless, what? he is old enough to be a believer on his own, in which event he must be a believer, right? So for adults, or children old enough, they have to be believers before baptism, right? But for infants they don’t; there must simply be someone else committed to raising them to some day become believers, right?

Thus, a child who is baptized and comes to “believing” faith later in life and still look back on that day and recall that God claimed them and was working to accomplish their salvation even when they were yet unaware of it, and give thanks for their baptism.

And the child who never comes to “believing” faith later in life? He looks back on his baptism as what?

 

[rinnie]

I Cant Believe I Getting Into This Again. In Infants We Make A Commitment To Bring Then Up In The Faith Correct. No Argument. Now At Confirmation You Have Lived Up To Your Commitment To God. You Did Your Best To Bring This Child Up In The Faith. Now What You Are Asking Now If I Am Correct Is What If That Child Leaves The Faith Or Doesnt Believe In The Faith Is That What You Are Asking. If That Is Your Question The Answer There Is Nothing You Can Do. At Confirmation You Know What You Need To Know. Now It Is For Gods Grace To Carry You Through If You Ask Him To. There Is No Way As A Catholic That We Can Force Our Faith On Anyone. We Believe In Our Faith If We Didnt We Would Never Want Our Children To Have It, If We Didnt Feel God And His Graces Were Wonderful Gifts For Our Children We Would Never Teach Them The Faith. Now If They At The Age Of Eighteen Or Whenever They Are On Thier Own Decide No To Follow The Faith We Cant Make Them. God Gives You A Choice. Just Like All Of Us If You Love Me Keep My Word. The Ten Commandments. Follow Them And You Will Have Salvation. But If A Child Doesnt Believe Or Want To Follow The Faith Thats Not Our Fault. But Kids Do Leave Or Miss Church As They Grow Older No All But Im Sure More Do Than Dont. But I Will Tell You This That Baptism Is Never A Waste. Because Sooner Or Later Most Not All Will And Do Return To Thier Catholic Faith. That Is Where Gods Grace Comes In Effect. Go Back To The Prodical Son. I Know I Spelled It Wrong Sorry Im In A Hurry. But My Point If A Father Has Ten Kids And One Falls Away From The Church And Then Comes Back. He Rejoices He Was Lost And Is Now Found. It Happens In Every Family. But All They Haveto Do Is Go Back To God. Open Arms Is What Gods About And Forgiveness. Now They Repent Go Back To The Church And They Came Home. Thats What Home Is Home Is God. With God. That Is What The Catholic Faith Is Its Love Unconditional And Its Knowing That You Have Brought This Child Up In This Religion And The Faith You Have In This Religion Which Is God Way That Will Bring Them Home. I Dont Care If It Is On Thier Death Bed They Have Until The Last Day To Ask For Forgiveness And If You Want God He Will Take You. If You Believe He Will Help You. Because He Is God He Isnt Like Us He Is A Loving God And Forgiving God He Doesnt Hold Grudges. And That Is What We A Striving Every Day In The Catholic Religion To Doand Be Like And It Is Hard. But Through Him It Is Possible.

 

[jmcrae]

Rinnie;

Could you do my old eyes a favour, and break your messages up into short paragraphs with spaces in between?

It would make them a whole lot easier for me to read.

Thanks!!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

A wedding creates a family. It doesn’t recognize a family - there was no family, before the wedding.

An adoption creates a familial relationship where there was none before. The child belonged to no one, until the adoption ceremony took place. It is during the adoption ceremony that he becomes a son - that she becomes a daughter.

Yes. And that is why neither of these things are analgous to making disciples. A disciple is not made by a ceremony, a ritual, a contract, a judgment, a legal decree, nor a sacrament.

A disciple is made by a commitment, and commitment preceedes all of the above.

I’m not sure why you like to use language not used by Jesus or the Apostles,

Why? In part because we are talking about: “What is a disciple?”, and Jesus never actually defines that term in scripture. He only mentions that there is a cost to those who seek to continue as his disciples.

When Jesus tells us to make disiples in Matthew 28, I don’t think that he lists baptizing and teaching as either the exclusive nor the guaranteed means of making a disciple. I just don’t see that in the text itself. So, then one has to go outside the text to find the answers to “What is a disciple?” and “Wow are disciples made?”.

I’m not saying that the answer doesn’t need to be consistent with scripture, I think it does. But I don’t think we actually have the answer explicitly stated in scripture, so we must infer it from what is said, what is not said, and what it appears was already understood from the common usage of the terms in the language of the day. And the common understanding of disciple was that of student, any sort of student, but particularly one who was attached to the master. And that is why I use such terminology, because only that type of terminology makes any sense in the context of what Jesus said. Speaking of believers does NOT (except of course for those who because they believe in Jesus and his work chose to attach themselves to him and become known to the world as his pupils/followers).

In any event, for the infants, you make a commitment to raising them in the church and “in doing so have them baptized.” Your commitment to do that, of course, says nothing of their actually ever coming to faith in Christ.

granted

So if they never do, what was the purpose of their baptism?

Obedience.

That’s it primarily. But I can give a few other reasons as well.

1. As you alluded to, I do believe that it makes it more likely that they will come to saving faith later.
2. A Christian is going to not just give himself (his person) to Christ, he is going to give all of himself, everything he owns, all his possessions and turn them over to God as well. He is going to hold nothing back. In that context of the culture of the first century this included all the members of one’s household – one’s slaves, one’s wife, one’s children. So, these too would be given over to Christ. And how? Well, one would sprinkle some holy water on the doorposts and lintel of the house, and one would baptize one’s family members.

I am trying to understand your position, vis-a-vis Christ’s instructions in Matt. 28:19, and your belief that the “disciples” He instructed to be baptized need not be believers.

I appreciate that. And I appreciate the manner in which you have continued to keep the conversation focused on the issue.

I think there is one other thing that I see that changes my approach to the passage compared to yours. It’s a point of logic. Let me illustrate by changing the terms so as to remove some of the baggage that we might each be carrying.

The owner of the veterinary was leaving and said:
“Keep dogs from getting lost. Sell microchips and teach them how to use a leash.”

One could obviously see that selling a microchip put in the dog and teaching them how to use a leash might help with the first goal of keeping dogs from getting lost.

But there are other things that could keep dogs from getting lost: building fences, tattooing them, having them wear collars with tags. These things are not excluded because of the above instructions. Also not excluded, selling microchips to people who wish to keep their cats from getting lost.

And what is the order that one does these things in. Well, one might think of the keeping dogs from getting lost as a product of the other two, but it is also important that they not be lost before attempting the other two. Ever try to put a microchip in a lost dog? I don’t think it can be done. And once it is done, it doesn’t mean that the dog can’t get lost. You just have a better chance of finding it, but no guarantee.

So, too, I think that discipleship, baptism and teaching are all related. But don’t think that they have a predetermined order to them as much as we might at first intutitively think they do.

 

[mercygate]

So, too, I think that discipleship, baptism and teaching are all related. But don’t think that they have a predetermined order to them as much as we might at first intutitively think they do.

As you have articulately shown with great patience and dignity on this thread.

The “best” point you have made is the clarification and “fuzzification” of the definition of a disciple. It is not a limited word in Scripture. Note the use of the word to mean the loose multitude of interested “learners” (as in John 6), the 70 who are sent to heal and cleanse, and also in the limited sense of the Twelve (John 20). The same word appears, clearly meaning ONE of these three things but not the other two in different places in the NT. But then, you know your Greek!

 

[Phil12123]

Yes. And that is why neither of these things are analgous to making disciples. A disciple is not made by a ceremony, a ritual, a contract, a judgment, a legal decree, nor a sacrament.

A disciple is made by a commitment, and commitment precedes all of the above.

I agree with you there. But I would add it has to be a commitment made by the person who is the disciple, not that person’s parents or “godparents.” So it is not a commitment to raise someone else but a commitment by the “disciple” to “be attached” to Christ, i.e., to trust in Him as Savior and submit to Him as Lord.

When Jesus tells us to make disciples in Matthew 28, I don’t think that he lists baptizing and teaching as either the exclusive nor the guaranteed means of making a disciple. I just don’t see that in the text itself. So, then one has to go outside the text to find the answers to “What is a disciple?” and “How are disciples made?”.

I’m not saying that the answer doesn’t need to be consistent with scripture, I think it does. But I don’t think we actually have the answer explicitly stated in scripture, so we must infer it from what is said, what is not said, and what it appears was already understood from the common usage of the terms in the language of the day. And the common understanding of disciple was that of student, any sort of student, but particularly one who was attached to the master. And that is why I use such terminology, because only that type of terminology makes any sense in the context of what Jesus said. Speaking of believers does NOT (except of course for those who because they believe in Jesus and his work chose to attach themselves to him and become known to the world as his pupils/followers).

**I would agree with you that Matt. 28:19-20 does not specifically say what a “disciple” is or how they are made, and that we have to look outside that text to answer those questions. That is why I looked at Mark 16 where He says, Go into all the world and preach the Gospel… etc. You discounted that passage as not being in the original, but it would show how a “disciple” could be made. And the book of Acts confirms that is what the Apostles did—they went out and preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for sins and their forgiveness. Those that heard that message and repented and believed it were then baptized. We don’t see anyone baptized that did not repent and believe that message, so why do you discount the idea that Jesus could have been referring to repentant believers as the “disciples” He wanted them to “make” and baptize? IMHO, it is simply because you have been taught infant baptism all your life, and have practiced it yourself, and feel compelled to justify that practice by making “disciples” less than full believers to make infants qualify, even though a 1-day-old infant is a student of NOTHING, least of which a student of the theology of sin and redemption, or even the simplest teachings of Jesus. Nor do we see anyone is Acts believing for anyone else, whether their own child or anyone else’s.

to be continued…
**

 

[Phil12123]

In that context of the culture of the first century this included all the members of one’s household – one’s slaves, one’s wife, one’s children. So, these too would be given over to Christ. And how? Well, one would sprinkle some holy water on the doorposts and lintel of the house, and one would baptize one’s family members.

Where did you come up with that one?

I think there is one other thing that I see that changes my approach to the passage compared to yours. It’s a point of logic.

I would add another point of logic. Let’s look at Christ’s words again, in both Matthew and Luke:

**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.

Luke 24:
45. And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
46. Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47. "and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48. "And you are witnesses of these things. **

**Luke’s passage does not even mention baptism, but do you see the connection between Matt. 28:19 (“make disciples of all nations”) and Luke 24:47 (“repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations”)?

Is not Luke 24:47 telling us how He intended them to “make disciples” of all nations? By preaching repentance and remission of sins in His name to all nations? Is that not clearly anticipating people hearing the preaching, repenting of sins, and having their sins forgiven? That would be believers, plain and simple. You can say they’re “students” all you want, but they have repented and had their sins remitted. Obviously not referring to infants.**

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie;

Could you do my old eyes a favour, and break your messages up into short paragraphs with spaces in between?

It would make them a whole lot easier for me to read.

Thanks!!

I am so sorry. And you are right. I guess i need to slow down. I am always so much in a hurry. (can you tell). Hey guess what people say i talk fast too, Can you believe that. But i promise i will do better. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

 

[MariaG]

It has been a good discussion overall.

Since the thread will soon be closed due to 1000 posts, I just wanted to tip my hat to you all on the great general overall tone of this thread:tiphat:

And while I certainly know that Phil doesn’t agree, I do pray that he sees that we firmly believe that our way is the “biblical” way, and have much scripture and tradition that we hold fast to as scripture tells us to

God Bless,
Maria

 

[NotWorthy]

Yeah, same here. Although I haven’t participated for the last 10 pages, I’ve paid attention. Grace Seeker, you’ve been most pleasant to interface with. May God continue to bless you… and may you become Catholic someday soon!!!

 

[mercygate]

Yeah, same here. Although I haven’t participated for the last 10 pages, I’ve paid attention. Grace Seeker, you’ve been most pleasant to interface with. May God continue to bless you… and may you become Catholic someday soon!!!

Ditto. Grace Seeker is cool.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I won’t post again so that some other may have the last word, but I too have found this to be a worthwhile discussion. Phil, I think you have a lot of good points. To questions such as:
"why do you discount the idea that Jesus could have been referring to repentant believers as the ‘disciples’?"
and other similar questions. I say, most certainly Jesus could have been referring to repentant believers as disciiples, but, given the many ways that term was used in Jesus’ culture, I don’t thnk it follows that he was necessarily referring to them exclusively. I have no objection to believer’s baptism. I have objection to believer’s only baptism. And part of it is in your closing argument for it.

Is not Luke 24:47 telling us how He intended them to “make disciples” of all nations? By preaching repentance and remission of sins in His name to all nations? Is that not clearly anticipating people hearing the preaching, repenting of sins, and having their sins forgiven? That would be believers, plain and simple. You can say they’re “students” all you want, but they have repented and had their sins remitted. Obviously not referring to infants.

a 1-day-old infant is a student of NOTHING, least of which a student of the theology of sin and redemption, or even the simplest teachings of Jesus…

Of course Jesus is here telling us a means by which he sees the world being reached. Again, I question if that is the one and only means. But if one has to wait till one is capable of acing the final exam, then I think we have to wait longer than just simple belief. We have to wait till we understand what we can only now, in Paul’s words, “see in a glass darkly.” And I think such a moment in time would be too late to do us any good. What you have done in making that statement, though I doubt it was your intention, is to put the point of baptism on a line between having no knowledge and having all knowledge and made it about picking which is the right point in time before which baptism is valueless. That point is, in my opinion, either end point. I find that baptism has merit and is enjoined upon those who belong to God at any point between birth and death. (And disciple making and Christian teaching are appropriate across the whole spectrum of life as well.) For those who don’t belong to God, baptism is never appropriate, but I reject the idea that an infant cannot belong to God.

We will continue to disagree as to whether or not an infant can ever belong to God or be properly termed a disciple, but I don’t disagree with the reason these things are important to you. I think they are important to all who have participated in this discussion. We just have some different understandings of when and how it is that God is active in a person’s life based on different ways of interpreting the key scriptural passages.

My guess is that none of us humans (not even the teaching magestrium of the Catholic church) fully understands all that has been revealed to us, let alone all there is to know of God. And so, I’m willing to admit that I probably have some things wrong. Of course, if I knew what they were, I would gladly change them. And having done so in the past, believe that all my present views must therefore be correct. (Are not we all that way, at least a little bit?) Nonetheless, when I no longer see in that glass darkly but face-to-face, I expect to be suprised by many things. And, who knows, this may be one of them. If it is. I hope you won’t gloat too loudly. And if it isn’t, well, I don’t suppose you have done any real harm in having children wait till they were able to speak for themselves. But as for me, I will continue to baptize all children raised in the Christian homes, we’ll continue to introduce them to Jesus, teach them to follow his instructions, and ultimately claim their salvation for themselves based not just on some event in their lives but their own faith and personal walk with Jesus as Lord and Savior in their lives individually. If you see this later part to be what it means to make disciples, then know that we are still baptizing, teaching, and making disciples of all nations. And if you only do the same for adults who proclaim faith in Jesus first, I can respect that, and commend all those people to God’s grace as well, praying that they will remain faithful and that their baptisms will not have been mere words or a passing fancy, but truly a lifechanging moment in their lives.

God be with all who have participated here. Thank-you for your kindness in including me in this discussion and for your own (name removed by moderator)ut. May each of you recognize the Spirit’s leading in your life and find the grace to follow.

Peace.