Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[NotWorthy]

Phil, if the early Church didn’t want to create confusion, then they would have said, “Baptism replaces Circumcision, except for the little rugrats. Wait til they’re old enough.” It never said that. As was mentioned earlier, Paul tells the jailer, “Believe, and your whole household will be saved”. Does Paul say, “Believe, and those old enough will be saved”? No. Jesus, in the course of his teachings, tells us that Children are the perfect subjects for baptism. We should be like them. Does he say, “You should be like them, except you can be baptized, and the little guys will have to wait. What can I say? That (eternal) Life”.

Phil, the 1st century church baptized children. Get over it.

I challenge you, Phil, to show me the first recorded incident where a child was denied baptism specifically because he was too young.

 

[Phil12123]

Phil, if the early Church didn’t want to create confusion, then they would have said, “Baptism replaces Circumcision, except for the little rugrats. Wait til they’re old enough.” It never said that. As was mentioned earlier, Paul tells the jailer, “Believe, and your whole household will be saved”. Does Paul say, “Believe, and those old enough will be saved”? No. Jesus, in the course of his teachings, tells us that Children are the perfect subjects for baptism. We should be like them. Does he say, “You should be like them, except you can be baptized, and the little guys will have to wait. What can I say? That (eternal) Life”.

You have dodged every point I made in my last post by simply ignoring it and then rehashing stuff we’ve gone over a million times. So, I will turn the tables and ignore everything you say above, since we’ve already addressed it. Besides, my responses to each of your statements above would just be ignored as well.

Phil, the 1st century church baptized children. Get over it.

I challenge you, Phil, to show me the first recorded incident where a child was denied baptism specifically because he was too young.

**And I challenge you to show me the first recorded incident where an infant was baptized by “the 1st century church.” And please don’t tell me about households in Acts, because we both know (though you will not admit) that in none of those incidents do we see a clear case of a nonbelieving infant being baptized solely because his believing parent was baptized.
**

 

[MariaG]

Indeed Maria, the power to Baptize stems from perfect life…

Maria, thank you for your edifying post.

Thanks But I think Phil disagree

**We know that neither Jesus nor any of His disciples baptized any infants or small children, **

I disagree Phil. We do not know that and in fact we have repeatedly shown you scripture to the contrary.

So we disagree with this basic premise of yours.

So what does scripture tell us to do when you have a disagreement with your brother? Take it to the Church.

I won’t even limit it to the Catholic Church Phil. Show me the a Christian Church before the 1600’s who denied infants baptism and interpreted scritpure the way you do.

so either (1) the door to open salvation to them is NOT baptism, or (2) they didn’t need that door till they were old enough to understand the gospel.
Certainly, you can’t be accusing Jesus of denying infants salvation by His not baptizing them or instructing His disciples to do it, can you?

Since I disagree with your first assertion, these do not in fact follow.

That is an interesting verse but are you using it properly? Did you get your interpretation from the CCC, Sec. 1637, the only place in the entire CCC that that verse is mentioned? And if not, are you a Magisterium unto yourself, or just allowing the Holy Spirit to teach you, something you mock Protestants for doing?

Respectfully Phil, you clearly have read little of my posts for you to make such a ridculous and false claim. You should apologize and retract it.

I have never mocked Protestants for claiming to be led by the spirit. In fact if you look for posts by me, I have repeated posts where I proudly state, if somewhat ironically, that this Catholic was led to the Catholic Church through scripture alone and the Holy Spirit. I have never mocked people who believe they have been led by the Holy Spirit.

But I do find it interesting that instead of responding to the scripture I posted, you prefer to post a personal attack that is pattentedly false.

Though shall not bear false witness Phil.

IF your belief is scriptural, you should be able to respond to my scripture verses, at least with a different interpretation rather than trying to avoid answering. But really, you don’t even have to do that. Let’s take our disagreement to the Church Phil. Show me a Christian church before 1700’s that believe in no infant baptisms?

 

[MariaG]

And I challenge you to show me the first recorded incident where an infant was baptized by “the 1st century church.” And please don’t tell me about households in Acts, because we both know (though you will not admit) that in none of those incidents do we see a clear case of a nonbelieving infant being baptized solely because his believing parent was baptized.

Is 189AD soon enough? Most don’t believe the church fell into error at least until 350 or so

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (*Letters *64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

 

[Angainor]

A Protestant Pastor I know really well wants me to be baptised as an adult. He knows I was baptized as an infant, but wanted to present me with scripture as to why God commands us to do so as an adult.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16
Do you believe?
Are you baptized?

You can tell the pastor that you are baptized. If the pastor says you need to be baptized again he is implying that the first baptism didn’t work and Jesus’ promise in Mark 16:16 isn’t valid. You were baptized. You can trust Jesus promise.

 

[onenow1]

Hi,
Colossians 2:
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

13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.

Christ’s circumcision= baptism that He instituted.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

God can do anything, he can certainly give faith to a child.
Faith comes through grace in the working of God.

Peace,OneNow1

 

[NotWorthy]

You have dodged every point I made in my last post by simply ignoring it and then rehashing stuff we’ve gone over a million times. So, I will turn the tables and ignore everything you say above, since we’ve already addressed it. Besides, my responses to each of your statements above would just be ignored as well.

**Fair enough. You’ve only addressed the same argument yourself a million times with nothing more than denial. I can deal with that. If you don’t wish to believe the Catholic position, it’s your problem. Not mine.

**

**And I challenge you to show me the first recorded incident where an infant was baptized by “the 1st century church.” And please don’t tell me about households in Acts, because we both know (though you will not admit) that in none of those incidents do we see a clear case of a nonbelieving infant being baptized solely because his believing parent was baptized.
**

Fair enough. We don’t see a clear case for OR AGAINST Infant Baptism. So let’s look at the early Church. Remember the Apostles were still alive during this time. This comes from the following web-site: revneal.org/Writings/aletter.htm which was compiled by a Methodist Minister.

Archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]

OK, Phil so it’s your turn. When did Christians first start denying infant baptism? Since I doubt if you’ll adress this point, I’ll give you a clue form the same web-site:

The exclusion of infants from Baptism is a relatively recent development in the history of the church, dating to the Anabaptists in Germany and the English Separatists (Baptist) of the Reformation.

 

[Benadam]

**You’re getting the cart before the horse. Your cart is pulling your horse. LIFE is found only in Jesus. If you have Jesus, you have LIFE. **

I would say this is the closest we can get to an explicit description of that cart and horse in Scriptures

Luke 7
29(All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words,acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had beenbaptized by John. 30But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)

this happened because:

32 The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33The man( John) who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful.

what is made available to humanity through John?

36Whoever believesin the Son has eternal life, but whoeverrejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him."

who believed and why?

29(All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words,acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John.

who rejected and why?

30But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)

John 1:

After reading the passage I’ve posted do you deny that Baptism can cause the acceptance of Jesus?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

One cannot prove from scripture that infants were included, rather one looks at passages about households and infer that infants were therefore included if it was indeed “whole” households that were baptized.

One cannot prove from scripture that infants were excluded, rather one observes that all those whom we actually know whether they were infants or adults at the time of their baptism were adults and we infer that then all others were as well.

The problem with both arguments is that they are totally unprovable from an objectiver reading of scripture, and only serve to prove what we are willing to infer from the text or, in other words, what we assume to be the case. I suggest the origins of those assumptionsis our own personal desires as to what we want to find.

So, when is the first record that we have of children either being specifically included or specifically excluded. The first record is those of the early church, but not the N.T. church. In those records we see that indeed infants are baptized and not excluded. Now, we must make another assumption. We must assume that either this was a continuation of the practice of the NT church, or that with knowledge that the practice of the NT church was to the contrary the second century church elected to baptize infants anyway.

I tend to think it was the former. But, if you believe it was the later, you still have to answer this question. Would the church that changed the practice of baptism to start baptizing infants when it had not been part of the practice of the church before, have done so knowing that the church taught NOT to baptize infants, or because the church had no position on baptizing infants?

 

[Benadam]

Is 189AD soon enough? Most don’t believe the church fell into error at least until 350 or so

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (*Against Heresies *

 

[ScottishColleen]

I do believe we need to look at “households” of that day. They were generally multi generational as well as extended (beyond immediate family in some cases and including bond servants. When the destruction of a man and his household it mentioned, we know from history and writings that it meant right down to the newest infant. The definition of that period does not change suddenly with the subject of baptism.

Therefore, yes, “household” is a valid argument.

 

[fullofzeal]

oh phil, where are you? It’s all true brother, the Church that claims to be the Church actually is the Church. remember the greatest accomplishment a man can have is to overcome himself.

peace

 

[Phil12123]

me: We know that neither Jesus nor any of His disciples baptized any infants or small children,

I disagree Phil. We do not know that and in fact we have repeatedly shown you scripture to the contrary.

What scripture? I was talking about Jesus and His disciples, while He was with them, obviously teaching them and telling them how to make disciples and who then should be baptized, as in John 4:1-2. What scripture have you “repeatedly” shown that they baptized infants or small children? There is NOT ONE VERSE that shows that. NOT ONE.

me: That is an interesting verse but are you using it properly? Did you get your interpretation from the CCC, Sec. 1637, the only place in the entire CCC that that verse is mentioned? And if not, are you a Magisterium unto yourself, or just allowing the Holy Spirit to teach you, something you mock Protestants for doing?

Respectfully Phil, you clearly have read little of my posts for you to make such a ridculous and false claim. You should apologize and retract it.

I have never mocked Protestants for claiming to be led by the spirit. In fact if you look for posts by me, I have repeated posts where I proudly state, if somewhat ironically, that this Catholic was led to the Catholic Church through scripture alone and the Holy Spirit. I have never mocked people who believe they have been led by the Holy Spirit.

**You’re right and I do apologize and retract the words, “something you mock Protestants for doing.” It was Lampo, not you. He said in one post, “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…” To me, that is mocking someone saying he is guided or taught by the Holy Spirit.

But my point was, and question still is, do you think the Holy Spirit is giving you that verse to use in the context of this discussion over infant baptism? And how does that fit in with the Magisterium’s role as the only infallible teacher and interpreter of Scripture? Isn’t your role as a Catholic to simply ask or look to the Magisterium for the proper interpretation of that verse, or any other verse for that matter? **

But I do find it interesting that instead of responding to the scripture I posted, you prefer to post a personal attack that is pattentedly false.

IF your belief is scriptural, you should be able to respond to my scripture verses, at least with a different interpretation rather than trying to avoid answering.

**Fair enough. But I can’t claim any teaching or guidance of the Holy Spirit, so this may be simply speculation. Let’s look at the verse in context:
**
**1 Cor. 7:
12. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.
13. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.
14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
15. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.
16. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? **

**The context is a mixed marriage, i.e., a believer married to a nonbeliever. Paul says the believer should not divorce the nonbeliever if the nonbeliever is willing to live with the believer, because the nonbeliever is thereby “sanctified” by the believer. I think you read too much into that word, which can simply mean “set apart.” No nonbeliever is going to be “made holy” or “consecrated” in the sense you give it, simply by living with a believer. Being holy involves the forgiveness of sins and a right standing before God, something no nonbeliever has no matter where he lives. That is further verified by verse 16, which indicates the nonbeliever is still unsaved. As for the children, depending on who they were to live with if the parents divorced and lived separately, they may be “unclean” if they followed the ways of the nonbeliever or become “holy” if they followed the path of the believer. On the other hand, if both parents were willing to live together, they might be either but perhaps more possibly “holy” seeing both parents and being able to compare their lifestyles and behavior. which might lead them to follow the believer’s path.
**

 

[Phil12123]

God can do anything, he can certainly give faith to a child. Faith comes through grace in the working of God.

**Fine, and when He does, the child becomes a disciple and should then be baptized. But not before that occurs.
**

 

[Phil12123]

OK, Phil so it’s your turn. When did Christians first start denying infant baptism?

When Jesus’ disciples saw that Jesus did not baptize any of the infants or small children that their parents brought to Him, and He never instructed His disciples to baptize them, they first denied infant baptism at that point.

 

[Phil12123]

I do believe we need to look at “households” of that day. They were generally multi generational as well as extended (beyond immediate family in some cases and including bond servants. When the destruction of a man and his household it mentioned, we know from history and writings that it meant right down to the newest infant. The definition of that period does not change suddenly with the subject of baptism.

Therefore, yes, “household” is a valid argument.

**It would be a valid argument only if we knew in any particular case whether there were in fact infants in the household and it then specifically said the whole household was baptized. Do you know if my “household” has infants if I don’t tell you? You can’t argue from silence and speculation. In Lydia’s case we know absolutely nothing about the members of her household (Acts 16:15). In the jailer’s case, we are specifically told that “he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household” (Acts 16:34). It is also said that Paul spoke “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house” (v. 32).

In the first century, what the head of the household did, belief-wise, the rest of the household may have done. But, as today, every person still has to make his or her own decision, whether to follow someone else’s example, or go his separate way. That’s what the prodigal son did initially. And that’s what many others may have done, even in a household led by a believer. My point is, Jesus never commanded that nonbelievers (infants or adults) be baptized and then hopefully they will make a decision later to believe. NEVER. And He never taught that a nonbeliever should be baptized because someone else was a disciple or believed for him. NEVER. **

 

[Phil12123]

So, when is the first record that we have of children either being specifically included or specifically excluded.

When Jesus’ disciples saw that Jesus did not baptize any of the infants or small children that their parents brought to Him, and He never instructed His disciples to baptize them, at that point we have children being specifically excluded.

In those records [of the early church] we see that indeed infants are baptized and not excluded. Now, we must make another assumption. We must assume that either this was a continuation of the practice of the NT church, or that with knowledge that the practice of the NT church was to the contrary the second century church elected to baptize infants anyway.

I tend to think it was the former. But, if you believe it was the latter, you still have to answer this question. Would the church that changed the practice of baptism to start baptizing infants when it had not been part of the practice of the church before, have done so knowing that the church taught NOT to baptize infants, or because the church had no position on baptizing infants?

**I would assume it was the latter, but with the understanding that in the early church, second and third centuries, you did not necessarily have one huge homogenous group that did all things in agreement with all other Christians throughout the Roman world where they were dispersed. Ever been on a committee of, say, 10 members who all agreed on any one matter? Sure there were times, like in Acts 15, when leaders of the church got together to discuss differences of opinion, and later councils, as at Carthage, where things were decided, but who is to say all believers agreed with everything decided by others? And if someone objected to infant baptism, whenever that first occurred, as contrary to the command and instruction of Christ, would we necessarily have it recorded anywhere as some decision of an “official council”? Who knows, perhaps early on, one group of believers might have had Matthew’s Gospel to read and another might not. So one might say, “Wait, we can’t baptize your baby. She isn’t a disciple yet.” while the other might say, “Sure, I see no reason why we can’t,” not having Matthew.

The bottom line is, not why or when was it done, but should it have been done? And based on Matt. 28:19-20, it should not have been done then, and it should not be done today. **

 

[Phil12123]

One other thing. When Paul gave his farewell speech to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20, he warned them,

** 27. "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.
28. "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
29. "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
30. "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.
31. "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.**

Paul was not talking about someone somewhere else some day long hence, but from among themselves men would rise speaking “perverse things.” Another translation has that “perverting the truth” or “distorting the truth.” That could have been in the very first century. That is why it is so important to judge everything said by the ECF by the apostolic writings that give the very words of Christ, like Matthew’s Gospel.

 

[NotWorthy]

When Jesus’ disciples saw that Jesus did not baptize any of the infants or small children that their parents brought to Him, and He never instructed His disciples to baptize them, they first denied infant baptism at that point.

That’s a nice dodge, Phil. But since you KNOW we don’t accept your premise, you might try going extra-biblical.

 

[NotWorthy]

Phil, I’m still waiting!