Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[NotWorthy]

What? “only those old enough”? Where did that come from? Are those the words of Christ? NO!! They are not my words either! Why are you fighting the words of Christ so fervently? Do His words offend you? The issue is not age, whether just born or 100 years old. The issue is "make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM… teaching THEM…" Is that really so hard to believe and obey? The issue is not age, it’s conversion. If a one-day old infant can be a disciple (Matt.) or a believer (Mark), then it can be baptized. But we both know, the eleven/twelve did not go out and convert any infants, so none were baptized.And what do we do with children? Don’t we teach them? Don’t we make them disciples? Or do we wait til they are of the age of reason? In your church today, aren’t you teaching your kindergarten kids Bible study? Isn’t this making them disciples?

You remind me of Demetrius (Acts 19:24), who was upset with Paul’s preaching because it led many who purchased his idols to stop doing that. He fought against that preaching because it was going to ruin his business. Never mind that idolatry was bad; the main thing is business will suffer without it.

Unlike Demetrius, what makes you think I’m upset?

** It’s like you have some vested interest in NOT following Christ’s words, like it will ruin the baby-baptizing business. Never mind that it is unscriptural and contrary to Christ’s commands**OK, Phil, you’ve stated this several times. You sound like the democrats on TV that think if you state something often enough, people will start believing it. I’m sorry, but your argument does not stick. You have not shown me where Jesus says to hold off on infants. I’ve shown you where Jesus requested infants and I’ve shown you where Paul baptized whole households (no stipulations on those households, simply whole households). I’ve shown you where Baptism replaces Circumcision with no stipulations on age. And I’ve shown you where the earliest Church history agrees with this teaching. You then, puff up your chest and accuse me of fighting Christ’s words.

Phil, that dog don’t hunt!!!

; the main thing is to keep this manmade tradition alive and well because to admit that it is against Christ’s command is to admit you’ve been wrong in doing it for centuries. Of course, others saw that 500 years ago and stop doing it, preferring rather to simply obey Christ.

They stopped Sacred Tradition. You do the math.

But they were/are heretics that should be burned at the stake after they are stretched on the rack. Hmmm…“redemptive suffering.” Sigh.

Wow, that was a good non-sequitur. I guess you’ve run out of “logic” so you resort to other accusations, Phil. I’m impressed.

You “take a look at all of Scripture”? Did you really look at Matt. 28:19-20? If so, what part of it did you not understand, that required looking at households, or circumcision, or ECF, or anything else? You may have looked at Matt. but the truth is you have ignored it, disobeyed it, and taught against it.
Peace

Sigh… I’ve asked you where Jesus eliminates cihldren. You simply repeat the accusation. Again, does your church start making disciples of your children at 12 or do they start as soon as they can?

“Bring the Children to Me”, Phil, “Bring the children to Me”.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hey, Phil, when you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, I am usually trying to show you what I think you are saying, so I can show that I understand you correctly or not.

A gentle correction would go a lot further than this ruffling of feathers.

Also, if you stick around, you may find that I rarely get emotional when discussing stuff like this. Some people find that I’m more charitable with those of opposing views than most on these forums. I’m not sure why you think I’m getting mad and what not.

 

[Zooey]

The infant can’t repent. Peter was speaking to the parents of the infants. He was telling the parents to repent, for the promise of baptism was for them and their children (Greek, teknon). The parents are called to make an act of faith on behalf of their infants because their infants cannot. But this should pose no problem for you, since the Scriptures are full of examples of Jesus effecting healing based on the faith of others.

For example, Jesus healed the paralytic based on the faith of those who brought him. Jesus heals the faith of the centurion’s servant based on the faith of the centurion. Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. In the Old Testament, God spared the first-born son based on the parent’s faith.

Now, let me ask you a question: If God is willing to effect physical and spiritual cures for children based on the faith of their parents, how much more will he bring children into the New Covenant of grace based on the faith of their parents?

 

[Lampo]

**Do you believe Jesus said the words He is recorded by Matthew as having said in Matt. 28:19-20? Yes or no? **

Yes, based on the authority of the Catholic Church. And I agree with that passage 100%. However, I don’t agree with your personal, fallible, man-made interpretation. You are fallible, right? If yes, then you could be wrong on every single one of your points, right?

Let me ask you: Who told you that Jesus said the words He is recorded as saying by Matthew? Who told you Matthew wrote the book of Matthew?

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.

Where does it say “except for infants”, or “at the age of reason only” in these passages?: Household Baptisms – Acts 10:47-48; 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16

The following texts demonstrate that one can receive supernatural benefits through another person’s faith.

Matthew 8:13 – Christ healed the Centurian’s Servant is through the Centurian’s Faith.

Matthew 9:2 - Christ healed the paralytic through the faith of those who lowered him on a mat.

Matthew 15:28 – Christ healed the Canaanite girl through the faith of her mother.

James 5:14-20 – The anointing and prayer of the elders of the church heal the sick and absolve their sins.

Christ’s healings outwardly manifest an interior cleansing of sin (See Matthew 9:5, Mark 2:9, James 5:15

1 Cor. 7:14 – “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.”

 

[Phil12123]

And what do we do with children? Don’t we teach them? Don’t we make them disciples? Or do we wait til they are of the age of reason? In your church today, aren’t you teaching your kindergarten kids Bible study? Isn’t this making them disciples?

Of course we teach them, from as early an age as possible. And of course making them disciples too is the ultimate objective. But these things will proceed with us doing what we can and leaving the rest to the Holy Spirit. At some point, the Holy Spirit will show these precious young children that they too are sinners in need of a Savior, and what they have to do to make Him their Savior, for them personally (repent and believe, etc.). Then when they come to see themselves as sinners, repent, and believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose again (=the Gospel, 1 Cor. 15:1-3), they become disciples/believers and are ready for baptism as such. All in accordance with Jesus’ instructions. After that they are ready for even more teaching, to observe everything else He commanded, including sharing their new faith with others and doing what they can to make other disciples, etc., who in turn do the same, making other disciples, etc.

Unlike Demetrius, what makes you think I’m upset?OK, Phil, you’ve stated this several times. You sound like the democrats on TV that think if you state something often enough, people will start believing it. I’m sorry, but your argument does not stick. You have not shown me where Jesus says to hold off on infants. I’ve shown you where Jesus requested infants and I’ve shown you where Paul baptized whole households (no stipulations on those households, simply whole households). I’ve shown you where Baptism replaces Circumcision with no stipulations on age. And I’ve shown you where the earliest Church history agrees with this teaching. You then, puff up your chest and accuse me of fighting Christ’s words.

Phil, that dog don’t hunt!!!

**My “argument does not stick”? What is my argument? That we should simply obey Christ’s instructions as to WHO to baptize. So, it does not stick? You reject that? That’s what I’ve been saying. Christ gave clear instructions, "make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM… teaching THEM…, and THAT you are rejecting, denying, ignoring, and fighting tooth and nail against. WHY? Why can’t you just hear and obey? Is it a pride thing? Are you afraid to admit you are doing that, fighting against Christ’s words, doing all you can to go around them and baptize babies who are not disciples? Which HE did not command His disciples to do? Is that so hard to see? It really boggles my mind that you can’t see what you’re doing here.

Hey, if you want to stick with your traditions of men and ignore Christ’s command, that’s your decision. But when you stand before Him and He asks you, “Did I say to baptize babies?” what are you going to say? “Well, there were surely babies in at least one of those households, so I fought for baptizing all babies.” And if He replies, “But did I say to baptize babies?” what will you say? “Well, I figured baptism replaced circumcision…” And if He replies again, “But did I say to baptize babies?” what will you say? “Well, the ECF said we should…” And if He replies again, “But did I say to baptize babies? Why did you fight my words, to make disciples, baptizing THEM…?” what will you say then?**

“Bring the Children to Me”, Phil, “Bring the children to Me”.

**
To baptize them? NO. NOT ONCE. NOT ONCE by Him or any of His disciples. Why doesn’t that tell you anything?**

 

[Phil12123]

Me: Do you believe Jesus said the words He is recorded by Matthew as having said in Matt. 28:19-20? Yes or no?

Yes, based on the authority of the Catholic Church. And I agree with that passage 100%. However, I don’t agree with your personal, fallible, man-made interpretation. You are fallible, right? If yes, then you could be wrong on every single one of your points, right?

Sure, I’m fallible, and sure, I could be wrong, but if I am wrong, why can’t you show me that from the passage itself? How am I giving a “personal, fallible, man-made interpretation” to the words of Christ? What am I doing, how am I interpreting His words wrongly? What words of His am I “interpreting” wrongly? Show me. Don’t go to other passages and muddle the waters with households and circumcision and ECF. Look at the words of Christ in Matt. 28 and do some honest, biblical exegesis to show me how His words in that passage should be understood differently. Fair enough?

 

[Lampo]

Sure, I’m fallible, and sure, I could be wrong, but if I am wrong, why can’t you show me that from the passage itself? How am I giving a “personal, fallible, man-made interpretation” to the words of Christ? What am I doing, how am I interpreting His words wrongly? What words of His am I “interpreting” wrongly? Show me. Don’t go to other passages and muddle the waters with households and circumcision and ECF. Look at the words of Christ in Matt. 28 and do some honest, biblical exegesis to show me how His words in that passage should be understood differently. Fair enough?

Obviously you are interpreting them differently than His Church, which is the pillar and bullwark of truth - 1 Tim 3:15. You already know what the Catholic Church teaches and has taught for nearly 2,000 years regarding infant baptism. You are looking at the same words in Scripture that She is. On who’s authority do you interpret Scripture? Who can tell you that you are wrong? You are basically your own pope/authority. Don’t tell me you feel guided by the Holy Spirit when interpreting Scripture. So do the other 33,000 different denominations that all contradict each other on certain doctrines. Lutherans use the same Scriptures you do and claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, yet they baptize infants - that’s just one example of another Protestant denom. that is different than your theology. I’m sure there are sects of Lutheranism that don’t believe in baptizing infants.

 

[NotWorthy]

Phil, please stop prattling on about me fighting Jesus’ words. You simply interpret who is to be baptized differently than 2000 years of Tradition. I’m not fighting His words, neither would I stoop to accusing you of fighting Christ’s Words.

---

To baptize them? NO. NOT ONCE. NOT ONCE by Him or any of His disciples. Why doesn’t that tell you anything?**

Your argument that Jesus didn’t baptize children is misfounded, because Jesus didn’t baptize anyone. Using your logic, no one then should be baptized. I am purposefully being ridiculous with this statement just to show how your argument (of Jesus not baptizing babies) is baseless.

Phil, were you there 2000 years ago? Did you see take a census of any one of these “whole households” and verify that no infants were included? If you weren’t, then you cannot infallibly declare that no infants were baptized by the Apostles. Neither can I infallibly declare that there were infants.

So it seems we’re at an impasse. No wait, no we’re not. I have 2000 years of tradition.

 

[NotWorthy]

Phil12123, I gotta admit I love this.

“St. Ireneaus, I know you learned from St. Polycarp, who learned directly from the Apostle John. And I know that you were executed for your faith in Christ. But why did you fight His words in Matthew so hard???”

“Yeah, you too, St. Cyprian. I know you were such a witness for Christ, but why did you fight His words in Matthew”.

That’s why I say that don’t won’t hunt, Phil.

 

[terri_fortner]

Are we all forgetting that the Church existed before the bible, several HUNDRED years. The Catholic church wrote the bible, and then translated it into different languages, and then Mass produced it. They were the first to teach us anything about Jesus,a nd if it wasn’t for the Church then we would have no Bible to read, and we would have no faith.

I have yet to read it cover to cover, but I have read it all at some stage or another, and NOWHERE in the bible does it tell us that Jesus told his people to go and build a bible so the rest of us can make up our own churches. He told them to build a church so that the rest of us can follow Him.

 

[Phil12123]

Obviously you are interpreting them differently than His Church, which is the pillar and bullwark of truth - 1 Tim 3:15. You already know what the Catholic Church teaches and has taught for nearly 2,000 years regarding infant baptism. You are looking at the same words in Scripture that She is.

Correct, the same words in Scripture, and yet somehow we end up with different views of whether infant baptism is at all included in those words. Certainly if we just take the words as written and don’t try to read into them something that is not there, there can be no interpretation of them allowing for infant baptism. Right? If you disagree, what words can possibly include infant baptism? The word “disciple”? Is an infant a “disciple”? Were they told to make “disciples” of infants? Certainly “nations” would include infants; nations include everyone in the nations, including infants. But does that mean the infants in the nations can be “made disciples”? Let’s look at the passage again:

Matt. 28:
18. Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
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.

If you look at the word “disciple” elsewhere, both in the Gospels and Acts, infants would not fit it. Disciples are synonymous with believers, Christian or Christians, follower or followers. Someone who does not believe, whether by reason of young age or rejection of the Gospel, cannot be considered a “disciple.” The apostles would not have “made of disciple” if that person did not believe their message. Furthermore, the command is to make disciples, baptism them, and teach them to observe all He commanded them. That would require faculties that infants do not yet possess. The person need not be an adult, but he cannot be an infant.

Furthermore, this is supported by the CCC, Section 1226:

The apostles and their collaborators offer Baptism to anyone who believed in Jesus: Jews, the God-fearing, pagans. Always, Baptism is seen as connected with faith: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household,” St. Paul declared to his jailer in Philippi. And the narrative continues, the jailer "was baptized at once, with all his family."

On who’s authority do you interpret Scripture? Who can tell you that you are wrong? You are basically your own pope/authority. Don’t tell me you feel guided by the Holy Spirit when interpreting Scripture. So do the other 33,000 different denominations that all contradict each other on certain doctrines. Lutherans use the same Scriptures you do and claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, yet they baptize infants - that’s just one example of another Protestant denom. that is different than your theology. I’m sure there are sects of Lutheranism that don’t believe in baptizing infants.

**Well, do believers need “authority” to simply read a passage of Scripture and accept and obey the words as written? Can you show me any ambiguity in any of the words of Matt. 28:19-20, that would require me to consult someone else, some higher authority, as to their meaning? If I simply believe them as written and urge everyone’s obedience to them, am I really “interpreting” them, or just obeying them? I could very well answer with the Holy Spirit, but don’t really need to. You need to show me how I am doing any wrong “interpreting” by simply wanting to obey them.

Who can tell me I am wrong? You can and have. I’m not infallible. I could be mistaken. I have no problem with your telling me I am wrong, but I would appreciate a good reason why, which you have yet to provide.

Peace
**

 

[terri_fortner]

**

Who can tell me I am wrong? You can and have. I’m not infallible. I could be mistaken. I have no problem with your telling me I am wrong, but I would appreciate a good reason why, which you have yet to provide.

Peace
**

At the time infant baptism wasn’t being preformed because JESUS WAS STILL WITH THEM! The Old Covenant was still in effect. He hadn’t fulfilled all the prophecies, and His work on earth wasn’t finished. These writings weren’t made until long after Jesus had assended into Heaven. When the Disiples realized that He wasn’t comming back as soon as they had hoped they set in for the long haul and started writing stuff down and making books. For them to teach people with so that things wouldn’t get lost. They didn’t just compile the Bible, they made many more books to help people when they got confused.

Even durring the lives of the Apostles they didn’t have it figured out, and they argued over what this meant or that meant, and They wrote letters. The people were having a great trouble and they turned to the Church, or Apostles, and the Apostle told them what they needed help figuring out, and that was that. Somewhere along the way we lost faith that the Apostle’s successors had God’s blessing as that. That all of a sudden maybe someone in charge over there wasn’t who needed to be in charge. And that just makes me think of a very small God, and my God aint small, He aint small at all!

 

[Phil12123]

Are we all forgetting that the Church existed before the bible, several HUNDRED years. The Catholic church wrote the bible, and then translated it into different languages, and then Mass produced it. They were the first to teach us anything about Jesus,a nd if it wasn’t for the Church then we would have no Bible to read, and we would have no faith.

I have yet to read it cover to cover, but I have read it all at some stage or another, and NOWHERE in the bible does it tell us that Jesus told his people to go and build a bible so the rest of us can make up our own churches. He told them to build a church so that the rest of us can follow Him.

And your point, relative to the title of this thread, is…?

 

[flyersfan1088]

I don’t have the time right now to read through 12 pages of replies, so forgive me if this has already been stated. In the old covenant the sign was circumcision. Baptism is the sign entrance into the new covenant. Circumcision was performed on the eighth day. Infants were brought into the old covenant. Infants are brought into the new.

 

[NotWorthy]

flyers, the point has been made several times, But it hasn’t been adequately answered. So thanks for bringing it up again!

As Phil pointed out, Faith is essential. But he ignores that Jesus saved people, sometimes, not because of their own faith, but because of others. So he refuses to accept that a child can be baptized because of their father and mother’s faith.

 

[Phil12123]

Phil, please stop prattling on about me fighting Jesus’ words. You simply interpret who is to be baptized differently than 2000 years of Tradition. I’m not fighting His words, neither would I stoop to accusing you of fighting Christ’s Words.

That’s because I am NOT fighting His words, I am urging that we all accept and obey them. You, on the other hand, are NOT accepting and obeying them because you are teaching that we shouldn’t just baptize “disciples” as commanded by Christ, but also infants, which He did NOT command to be baptized. So you are indeed fighting His words, rather than simply believing and obeying them. It is NOT a matter of interpretation; it is a matter of obedience.

Me: To baptize them? NO. NOT ONCE. NOT ONCE by Him or any of His disciples. Why doesn’t that tell you anything?

Your argument that Jesus didn’t baptize children is misfounded, because Jesus didn’t baptize anyone. Using your logic, no one then should be baptized. I am purposefully being ridiculous with this statement just to show how your argument (of Jesus not baptizing babies) is baseless.

I said, “by Him or any of His disciples.” Fine, He didn’t baptize. What about my statement, “or by any of His disciples”? You ignore that and then complain about my logic! Your complaint is baseless.

Phil, were you there 2000 years ago? Did you see take a census of any one of these “whole households” and verify that no infants were included? If you weren’t, then you cannot infallibly declare that no infants were baptized by the Apostles. Neither can I infallibly declare that there were infants.

That is totally irrelevant to Matt. 28:19-20, so don’t concern yourself with a census.

 

[NotWorthy]

And your point, relative to the title of this thread, is…?

Maybe terri is saying that this Church that Jesus built, which learned at His feet for three years, who were guided by the Holy Spirit, may understand what Jesus was saying a little bit better than someone 2000 years later.

Maybe that’s why Sacred Tradition and the Early Church are so important to Catholics. But again, since you don’t have it, I can’t blame you for belittling it.

 

[NotWorthy]

That’s because I am NOT fighting His words, I am urging that we all accept and obey them. You, on the other hand, are NOT accepting and obeying them because you are teaching that we shouldn’t just baptize “disciples” as commanded by Christ, but also infants, which He did NOT command to be baptized. So you are indeed fighting His words, rather than simply believing and obeying them. It is NOT a matter of interpretation; it is a matter of obedience.

Wake me when you’re through accusing me of this, please.

Me: To baptize them? NO. NOT ONCE. NOT ONCE by Him or any of His disciples. Why doesn’t that tell you anything?Because you have not shown me that “whole households” did not include infants. When Paul says you and your household will be saved, you don’t find him looking through the house for a nursery, do you?

**I said, “by Him or any of His disciples.” Fine, He didn’t baptize.**Then quit using that arguement, please

What about my statement, “or by any of His disciples”? You ignore that and then complain about my logic! Your complaint is baseless.

**Because you have not shown me that “whole households” did not include infants.

**That is totally irrelevant to Matt. 28:19-20, so don’t concern yourself with a census.****Then how do YOU know that “whole households” did not include infants, Phil.

 

[Benadam]

**

Well, do believers need “authority” to simply read a passage of Scripture and accept and obey the words as written? Can you show me any ambiguity in any of the words of Matt. 28:19-20, that would require me to consult someone else, some higher authority, as to their meaning?

**\

Truth is ambiguous. One reason God put on flesh was because of that. Because it is ambiguous it requires preservation by the community that lived it. Truth cannot be built on error. To admit to a faith that believes error one admits to proof that excludes them from ever knowing truth as it is promised by Christ. Truth cannot be built on error.

The Ethiopian Eunuch reading Isiaah who knew he couldn’t know what he was reading without a teacher authorized to reveal it’s true meaning. Why didn’t the Holy Spirit just teach the Ethiopian?

 

[Phil12123]

flyers, the point has been made several times, But it hasn’t been adequately answered. So thanks for bringing it up again!

As Phil pointed out, Faith is essential. But he ignores that Jesus saved people, sometimes, not because of their own faith, but because of others. So he refuses to accept that a child can be baptized because of their father and mother’s faith.

Neither the Scriptures nor the CCC support your position. Only the faith of the person in question can result in his or her salvation.