Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[NotWorthy]

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

Wow, then someone needs to tell that to:
The paralytic lowered through the roof.
The Roman Centurian’s servant.
The Jewish official’s child.
The Gentile woman’s child.

Weren’t they all cured because of other people’s faith?

And Phil, once again you are misinterpreting. But this time it’s the CCC.

You are mistaking one’s Salvation with their baptism. Maybe that’s the whole problem with the thread. One can be baptized, as a child or as an adult, and still lose their Salvation. That’s because their faith failed them and they turned back to sin. So yes, one’s faith does determine one’s salvation, but that is not directly related to Baptism.

 

[Lampo]

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.”

Peace

Here is some of what the CCC says about infant baptism:

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, SubSection 3, Heading 1

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here.

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, SubSection 4, Heading 2

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. 50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. 51

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, SubSection 4, Heading 2

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized. 53

Phil, it is apparent you are a sola scripturist. You have failed to prove that “households” excluded infants. The Catholic Church does not adhere to sola scriptura. The Church relies on the ENTIRE word of God, spoken and written - Tradition.

This next question may help get my point across: Do you believe that contraception is morally acceptable? Can you show me one instance in Scripture where Christians used contraception and was morally accepted? This question is relevant because the Church has a teaching on contraception. It teaches that it is morally wrong and thwarts God’s plan or law.

Another question: Do you believe in guardian angels?

 

[christcnection1]

In my mind, this is one of the dozens (if not hundreds) of issues that put into question the superiority of Sola Scriptura.

Again, what do we see here?

We see many different groups of our separated brethren with countless different perspectives…

We see that they love the Bible and view it as the final authority on doctrinal matters…

We see that they genuinely love the Lord, and sincerely desire to follow His word through the guidance of the Holy Spirit…

MY GOAL IN SAYING THIS IS TO LIFT THEM UP AND EDIFY THEM.

However, when it comes to many of these issues, they simply cannot agree. It’s very sad, but I’m convinced that these divisions will either continue, or doctrinal differences will become irrelevant. Signs of this are becoming more and more clear.

Yes, it’s very important we are accurately interpreting the word of God, but I do not see how one can have “absolute assurance” their belief (while disregarding all others) is the only right one.

Truth is not relative or irrelevant, nor is it wise to water-down theological truths when wrestling with issues of eternal consequence.

Our Lord did not leave us in the dark. That is why He established a visible Church to guide His people into all truth.

If He did not, what means did our Lord provide to enable His Church to be “perfectly one” just as our Lord Jesus is like our Father in Heaven? Sola Scriptura will never get us to this place.

 

[Lampo]

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

Please do not misrepresent Catholic teaching. The CCC clearly supports the Church’s teaching - ON EVERYTHING! Please see post #180. The CCC and the Magisterium hold the official teaching of the Church. The Church doesn’t say one thing and then do the opposite.

 

[Phil12123]

Me: 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.

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

When you stop doing it, I will stop accusing you of doing it. I don’t know how you can’t see you are doing it. I want to believe and obey what Jesus said in Matt. 28:19-20, and you want to find reasons why it should not be believed and obeyed, reasons why the Church does not follow it, reasons why we should baptize someone who Jesus did not tell us to baptize. Correct?

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

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

You: 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?

What has households got to do with the fact that NONE of the infants or children that were brought to Jesus were baptized by Him or any of His disciples? You are avoiding the issue and the inescapable conclusion that Jesus does not want infants baptized or He would have had His disciples baptize them.

 

[Lampo]

Phil…This might help make it clear in your mind:
catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

 

[DebCWil]

No problem. The point is that people were signed into the Covenant at the age of 8 days. The first dispute about infant baptism in the Church was in the second century (if memory serves) and it was over whether baptism could be witheld until the 8th day.

Who says that infant baptism obviates the need for embracing Christ with the powers of faith and reason as we mature.

.

I like this response, linking Catholic teaching to Jewish tradition.
I have often used the idea of immunizations in responding to questions about infant baptism. We immunize infants and children against physical illnesses. With Baptism, we protect our children against evil by the power of God’s Grace.
There is also the historical reference to practices of the time period. All members of a household were expected to worship the same god as the head of the household. When the head of the household was baptized, his household was baptized with him.
Confirmation requires embracing Christ with reason and faith after reaching the age of discernment. Baptism and Confirmation are only the beginning of a lifelong journey. We affirm our faith throughout life as we renew our Baptismal promises, especially at Easter.

 

[Lampo]

Phil…Take a look at this passage: Heb 11:7 - “By faith Noah, warned about what was not yet seen, with reverence built an ark for the salvation of his household.”

Do you think he left his children behind? It doesn’t mention infants or children. It just says household. I’m not sure how old his children were at this time, but if they were infants then my analogy works.

 

[Publisher]

They weren’t infants…according to the myth, Noah, his wife and three sons and their wives went aboard the ark…8 adults.

 

[RTMirage]

“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 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; 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.” NKJV

Jesus said to “make disciples of all the nations”. According to Webster’s New World Dictionary Disciples - 1. a pupil or follower of any teacher or school. 2. an early follower of Jesus, esp. one of the Apostles. No age requirement is given for a disciple.

“Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit;” Jesus gives no age requirement. You keep bolding the word Them . According to Webster’s again Them is a pronoun it does not denote age. A them can be any age.

“teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;”
Once again you stress Them. Same answer as above.

In looking at Jesus’ words one can make an argument in the light of the order of Jesus’ commands.

1. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. No age given and done first. Jesus says nothing about them having to believe first.
2. Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. No age given and done second.

I find it interesting that He says to baptize first then he tells us to teach. Isn’t that what parents are supposed to do?

 

[jtown]

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.

Phil12123 Fair enough.

John 3:5.

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

You have to interpret this passage differently than us otherwise your entire argument is out the window. Further when you offer your interpretation you use words like possibly or perhaps.

Phil, this IS the general law on the necessity of baptism straight from Jesus. It contains the words “no one” and there is no stipulation on age.

You look rather to Matthew 28:19 - 20 and Mark 16:16 for the rules on baptism. Here is what you say on Mark 16:

**
Then He says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” IF the baptism is to follow the believing and to identify the new believer with all the other believers, it is clear that IF the first does not occur (the believing), the person is rejecting the gospel message and is therefore condemned, i.e., his sins will not be forgiven and he has to pay for them himself in hell. In that case, he should not be baptized to identify him with the other believers because he himself is not a believer.
.**

This is where you fallible interpretation has come in. We have looked for guidance from other scriptures, the ECF’s and our Sacred Tradition to make sure we have the meaning right on John 3:5.

What have you done to make sure your interpretation is right? Where have you looked, who do you go to in order to ensure you have the proper interpretation?

I have shown where we go.

You stated we create a dilemma with not listening to the commandments of Christ. We have listened and we are actively listening and following today.

You believe Matthew 28:19 along with Mark 16 creates the imperatives for baptism, and since you are so adamant about infants not being able to be disciples and unable of belief, then by your interpretation they are condemned.

THATS A DILEMA!

Now please provide all your evidence of how infants get into heaven straight from the scriptures since baptism AND belief are by your interpretations ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, and infants are incapable of belief.

Peace

 

[NotWorthy]

When you stop doing it, I will stop accusing you of doing it. I don’t know how you can’t see you are doing it. I want to believe and obey what Jesus said in Matt. 28:19-20, and you want to find reasons why it should not be believed and obeyed, reasons why the Church does not follow it, reasons why we should baptize someone who Jesus did not tell us to baptize. Correct? Phil, at least wave at me as you continue to talk right past me, please.

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

Me: **To baptize them? NO. NOT ONCE. NOT ONCE by Him **Phil, you said you’d stop using this arguement. Christ didn’t baptize anyone.

or any of His disciples

. Why doesn’t that tell you anything?

You still haven’t proved that “whole households” didn’t include infants.

Phil, you do understand that Scripture talks both to the people of the day, as well as people today, don’t you? When the Apostles baptized whole households, they never said, “Now, remember, this household had no children”. I understand that. The early Church understood it, because it baptized infants in the 1st century, while the Apostles were still alive.

I’m sorry that you keep fighting Scripture, Phil.

**What has households got to do with the fact that NONE of the infants or children that were brought to Jesus were baptized by Him ** I THOUGHT you said you were going to quite using this arguement. Jesus baptized nobody. I believe this is called a Non-Sequitor.

or any of His disciples

? You are avoiding the issue and the inescapable conclusion that Jesus does not want infants baptized or He would have had His disciples baptize them.

And as far as the early Church and I are concerned, they did baptize them when they baptized Lydia’s household, the Jailor’s household, and several others.

And until you can prove to me that infants weren’t in those households, I’m going to go with Scripture and Tradition.

 

[NotWorthy]

They weren’t infants…according to the myth, Noah, his wife and three sons and their wives went aboard the ark…8 adults.

But since infants weren’t normally listed in census, I’m not sure if this applies.

In any event, I’m not sure if it’s relevant.

 

[Publisher]

But since infants weren’t normally listed in census, I’m not sure if this applies.

In any event, I’m not sure if it’s relevant.

Noah issued a census?

 

[Phil12123]

I started my posting in this thread by saying,

**May I offer some food for thought? The only reason we baptize anyone today is because Jesus instructed His disciples to do so. The question that you pose is really this: WHO did Jesus tell His disciples to baptize? If we want to be faithful followers of Jesus, we need to faithfully follow His instructions, right?

The only Scripture giving those instructions is [Matt. 28:19-20]. So let’s look at it more closely and see if it tells us WHO Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize.

Jesus told them to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching THEM to obey everything I have commanded you.”

What does that tell us? If they went out and proclaimed the Gospel, or good news, that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, and the hearers did NOT believe that, would they be baptized anyway? Of course not; they would not have been made “disciples.” So, it was only the disciples that were made “of all nations” that were to be baptized. Only people who heard and believed the Gospel became disciples and proper candidates for baptism. Obviously they had to be of an age at which they could comprehend what the original disciples were telling them and could be taught to obey everything Jesus had commanded them. That would not have to be only adults. Young children can understand the Gospel, but infants obviously cannot.

Now, if Jesus felt infants needed baptism to remove original sin or for any other reason, His instructions would have included that. But they do not. To put words into His mouth, adding to His clear instructions is not to be a faithful follower of Jesus, but to be a follower of some manmade tradition.**

**I will leave you with that. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

Good bye.**

 

[NotWorthy]

I started my posting in this thread by saying,

**May I offer some food for thought? The only reason we baptize anyone today is because Jesus instructed His disciples to do so. The question that you pose is really this: WHO did Jesus tell His disciples to baptize? If we want to be faithful followers of Jesus, we need to faithfully follow His instructions, right?

The only Scripture giving those instructions is [Matt. 28:19-20]. So let’s look at it more closely and see if it tells us WHO Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize.
**

But this is where you fall into the “Sola-Versura” Trap, Phil. Why do so many people find one verse that they can use to enforce their beliefs and then ignore the rest of the verses?

I won’t re-hash the arguements, because you haven’t addressed them the other 5-10 times I gave them. God spoke to us through all of Scripture. Jesus said to baptize them. He didn’t say just the adults. But since Scripture tells us that Baptism replaces Circumcision, we baptize our infants. (Oops, I just re-hashed one of my arguments. Sorry).

 

[NotWorthy]

**
Now, if Jesus felt infants needed baptism to remove original sin or for any other reason, His instructions would have included that. But they do not. To put words into His mouth, adding to His clear instructions is not to be a faithful follower of Jesus, but to be a follower of some manmade tradition.**

I must address this little back-handed comment.

Let’s take a poll on which is the man-made tradition.
A) A Tradition started during Apostolic times and has been consistent for 2000 years.
B) A tradition that sprung up after 1600-1700 years when a faith started changing the rules in order to justify their new beliefs.

 

[Oregooner]

I started my posting in this thread by saying,

**May I offer some food for thought? The only reason we baptize anyone today is because Jesus instructed His disciples to do so. The question that you pose is really this: WHO did Jesus tell His disciples to baptize? If we want to be faithful followers of Jesus, we need to faithfully follow His instructions, right?

The only Scripture giving those instructions is [Matt. 28:19-20]. So let’s look at it more closely and see if it tells us WHO Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize.

Jesus told them to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching THEM to obey everything I have commanded you.”**

What does that tell us? If they went out and proclaimed the Gospel, or good news, that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, and the hearers did NOT believe that, would they be baptized anyway? Of course not; they would not have been made “disciples.” So, it was only the disciples that were made “of all nations” that were to be baptized. Only people who heard and believed the Gospel became disciples and proper candidates for baptism. Obviously they had to be of an age at which they could comprehend what the original disciples were telling them and could be taught to obey everything Jesus had commanded them. That would not have to be only adults. Young children can understand the Gospel, but infants obviously cannot.

Now, if Jesus felt infants needed baptism to remove original sin or for any other reason, His instructions would have included that. But they do not. To put words into His mouth, adding to His clear instructions is not to be a faithful follower of Jesus, but to be a follower of some manmade tradition.

**I will leave you with that. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

Good bye.**

Phil12123,

Okay I think I’ve read almost all of the 190+ entries on this thread and all or most of yours. I was trying to figure out why you were so darned excited about Matthew 28:19-20 when it completely destroys your argument. It appears that you have been misreading it. I think (and please correct me if I am wrong) that you read it to say that Jesus is giving a three-part instruction: 1) Go and make disciples of all nations; 2) baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and 3) teach them.

Unfortunately, this is not what this passage says. To illustrate how this passage should be read I will insert two words into the translation you have provided that should give you a better understanding of what Jesus meant. “go and make disciples of all nations by] baptizing THEM in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and then] teaching THEM to obey everything I have commanded you.”

The first part of that passage is the general command (your former #1) and the last two are the specific ways of doing it. Jesus is telling the Apostles how to make disciples of all nations as well as commanding them to do it. Notice that the first thing the Apostles should do is baptize. This is because, as many others have pointed out in this thread, this is the method by which people become Christians - in the same way that circumcision was the method by which Jewish boys became part of the old covenant.

Your argument that people have to become disciples before being baptized is not supported by this text. Instead, it is baptism (and being faithful to their later instruction) that makes them disciples.

If I completely missed how you interpret this passage, I would love to hear from you.

 

[jtown]

Oregooner ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!!
That is truly a revelation. I just joined this forum to specifically comment to Phil12123 about his theology.

What you have shown is the weakness in Phil12123’s interpretation of not only Matthew 28:19-20 but also Mark 16:16.

Phil attempts to demonstrate that in Mark 16:16 belief is stated before baptize and draws the conclusion that therefore this is the rule for all baptism’s.

And what is truly brilliant is that we can use Phil’s logic that he displays on Mark 16:16 and apply it to Matthew 28:19-20 and now these two verses are contradictory.

Which leaves us with John 3:5 which Phil has not handled nor would like to, but I promise it is very important. Jesus says:

“I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”

Let me again emphasize what Jesus said “No one can enter the kingdom”

So that there is no contradiction, the “water” of John 3:5 must refer to something else, such as the physical birth, or to the living water that Jesus referred to in the next chapter while conversing with the woman at the well. Water baptism is still retained but not until after the person’s becoming a disciple, as Jesus instructed and the pattern through out Acts confirms.

You are saying it refers to this OR that. Phil you really need to know what this water and spirit stuff is (we say baptism), because Jesus is making a very strong statement about those who do not do it.

When you understand that verse, you will understand why the Early Church Fathers debated NOT on whether or not to baptize infants, but ON how SOON to baptize the infants.

Peace

 

[Oregooner]

jtown

You bring up a good point with John 3:5. It is the verse that most clearly presents the way the early Christians (and the Catholic Church) understood the relationship between belief and baptism. For the Church, baptism is inextricably entwined with belief, but not in the way that some Protestants (including our friend Phil12123) think it is. They tend to think that a full belief is required before baptism “takes”. In the understanding of the Church, however, there is no precise order. Most adults who are baptized in the Bible only had a limited time with the Apostles, and yet they were baptized and considered Christians. How much did they understand of what was being taught to them? Even the Apostles, throughout Jesus’ ministry, had problems understanding him. The belief “required” is very minimal. You could even say that it needn’t amount to much more than a consent to be baptized. A consent, by the way, that parents, in the natural order of things, could give on behalf of their children. What better example of the free gift of grace can there be than the grace bestowed on a child at baptism?

I think it digressed a bit there. I hope we hear from Phil12123 on this, especially on how he would deal with the contradiction you pointed out.