Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[MariaG]

…You’re right and I do apologize and retract the words, “something you mock Protestants for doing.” It was Lampo, not you…

Thank you. I appreciate it. Sorry for the delay in responding. Not alot of time lately. I have been around on the forums, but I have been busy on a different thread.

**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? **

No, it is not. The Catholic Church does not have an official interpretation of every verse in scripture.

I do need to make sure my interpretation or the meaning that I believe Holy Spirit has revealed to me do not contradict Catholic teaching, and if they do contradict, I need to conform my conscience with the Church whom I believe Christ left in authority over me.

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. **

Yes, verse 16 does indicate that the husband or wife is still unsaved. But it also implies that the faith of the believer can save the unsaved husband or wife.

Am I reading in too much as applies to adults? Maybe.

But I do not believe that we read too much into scripture when it applies to children.

And while I respect that you believe you are interpreting scripture properly, I am saddened that you would prefer to think that the God was unable to lead the early Church to all truth but prefer to believe that it took 1700 years to reveal the truth the infants could not be baptized.

I truly do not understand how one could think that those who were taught by the apotles were more likely to get it wrong than people who are 1700 years after the fact, when in fact scripture warns us of false teachers who will come along.

Is it more logical to think that the false teachers that came along came along in 91AD or 1700AD? That God reformed the Church with Luther, but God couldn’t get it all right, so waited another few hundred years to get rid of infant baptism?

Are you so sure of your interpretation that you choose to believe this relatively new one over one that has been around since the time of the apostles?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[NotWorthy]

******Hey, you meant well. **, Yes, Phil, I do mean well. I may joke around a little (OK, a LOT), but I prefer that to people going at each other’s throat. In so doing, I hope I haven’t offended you in any way. We are brothers in Christ!

I don’t fault you for seeking to understand all Scripture in the light of Christ. The Ezekiel passage is something that reminds us of what He can do for the nation of Israel, which we might otherwise consider “goners” when it comes to God. And I can see how the portion that you lifted out would appear to be fulfilled in the church. Some would say it finds at least partial fulfillment in the church. But in the Phil12123 School of Biblical Interpretation, context must always be considered in understanding any Scripture.

But I went through the Ezekiel passage again and found that the Church has taught that this is a prophecy of baptism (25-27). When you look at it in the light of Peter’s words, you’ve got to see the fulfillment in the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

If baptism is a picture of our total cleansing of sin, would it not be a total submersion, rather than leaving any portion not under? Doing the latter would picture part of us not being cleansed.

Also, if baptism is a picture of our being buried with Christ, would it not be a total submersion, rather than leaving any portion not buried? How many graveyards have you walked through with a leg or arm sticking out of a grave?

Would there be any need for “much water” (John 3:23), if a few drops sprinkled, or pouring with a shell, would suffice?

Phil, there are a number of “good” reasons to see baptism by immersion as a better illustration of what God might be doing in it than either sprinkling or pouring. That reality does not make it the case that baptism is indeed to be limited to that illustration or method. You have assumed in this conversation that baptism is about the total cleansing of sin. But I see baptism as a proclamation of God’s prevenient grace. And by God’s grace, the rain falls on both the just and the unjust. What a better illustration of that than sprinkling?

Now, this conversation gets us away from the topic of this thread, because one does not have to link infant baptism to sprinkling and believer’s baptism to immersion. It is possible to immerse and infant (the Greek Orthodox do regularly) and to sprinkle an adult.

Also, it isn’t my intention to tell you to quit doing believer’s baptism. I think it is worth noting that there are some Biblical arguments that can be made for more than one position. I’ve appreciated reading how you have based your point of view on Matthew 28 and Mark 16, as (believe it or not) that is not something I have heard much of before. (Maybe I don’t run enough Baptist circles?) I don’t think that I should be saying that something is “clear” in scripture, when in fact it obviously isn’t clear or it would not still be being debated by so many over so many centuries. Perhaps, if scripture was explicit, then it would be clear. We make inferences as to what Scripture is implying, but as always that leaves room for more than one interpretation. When that happens I think it is rather hard to definitively say, “I’m right, and you’re wrong.” Thus, I’m not trying to prove anything, but to share as best I can where my viewpoint has come from. To the extent I have been able to do that I am glad to have been a part of this conversation and thank you for what you have educated me on with regard to your views as well.

 

[Phil12123]

Then, in your clinging to Matthew 28, you reject all the other teachings of Scripture that tell us that Baptism now saves us. I thought Peter’s Epistle stated that rather clearly. Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (and it’s allusions to Ezekiel) clearly show us that Baptism washes away our sins.

Maybe not. Here is 1 Peter 3:20-22 in the MacArthur Study Bible, which uses the New American Standard Bible:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And here are MacArthur’s notes on verse 21:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Malachi4U]

I have not read this entire thread so I hope I do not repeat something previously written but:

Perhaps Jesus did not give us the Bible as an instruction manual but rather He established a “Church” that was to teach us?

Perhaps the Church that Jesus founded put together the Bible not to teach us and be His authority but rather just to record the history and to pass on to us the stories?

The Bible might just be a book written to tell us stories so it did not get into the details and how to’s. The Church Jesus founded was given the task of passing down the how to’s. The reason the Bible is vague on so many topics which includes things like Baptism is the fact that the form of the Baptism was not as important as the Sacrament of Baptism itself? Nowhere does the Bible prohibit infant Baptism or demand a “believers” Baptism. The Church had the role of passing down the instructions and “Faith”? The Bible only notes a few examples of Baptism to pass on the importance of it?

A history book is not and instruction manual. A history book can pass down an accurate record of events, just not every detail. This is why Jesus founded a Church not a book. The Church gave us the book to help us understand history and have a record. After all, the only proof that the Bible is accurate and inspired is by the authority of the Church that put the Bible together from what she declared to be inspired writings.

 

[NotWorthy]

Malachi, please don’t try to confuse us with the facts!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

Maybe not. Here is 1 Peter 3:20-22 in the MacArthur Study Bible, which uses the New American Standard Bible:

OK… this is nice.

The following guys are a “little” older than Mr. MacArthur, but evidently they’ve followed the teachings of the Christian Church a little more closely than Mr. MacArthur, too.

I got this from the Catholic Answers web-site:

Justin Martyr

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (*First Apology *61 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian

“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!” (*Baptism *1 [A.D. 203]).

“Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (ibid., 12).

“We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost” (ibid., 16).

Hippolytus

“[P]erhaps someone will ask, ‘What does it conduce unto piety to be baptized?’ In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: ‘Amen, I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvation” (*Homilies *11:26 [A.D. 217]).

Origen

“It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism” (*Exhortation to the Martyrs *30 [A.D. 235]).

I hope Mr. MacArthur doesn’t mind, but it seems like if Tertullian were alive today, he’d call Mr. MacArthur a Viper!!! Vipers and Asps!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

Phil, I was reading up on Hebrews, chapter 6, where the inspired author condemns those who abandon the Christian Faith (to return to Judaism) and then wish to return to Christianity. Although the author of Hebrews doesn’t mention Baptism, look how these Early Church Fathers link the initiation into the Christian Faith with Baptism:

When St. Ephraim wrote about this passage he believed the writer was referring to those who apostatized and then attempted to return, rejecting the sacrament of penance and demanding a second baptism.

St. Ephraim identified the difference between second baptism and the Sacrament of Penance: *It is impossible to restore again to repentance: through a second baptism “those who have once been baptized” who have tasted the heavenly gift “through the medicine which they received, “have become partakers of the Holy Spirit” through the gifts received from the Spirit. “have tasted the goodness of the Word of God” in the new Gospel and were armed with the power of the age to come in the promises prepared for the pious ones, but now “have fallen away” again.

Those who propose two baptisms ask for the crucifixion again of the Son of God and for his dishonor***.** But crucifixion was performed once and will not be performed once more, and baptism was conceded as an “absolver” and is not conceded a second time to the sinner……]. After the apostles said these words and discouraged them from sinning and being in want of propitiation, he changed his tone and encouraged them, as if to say, “If there is no second baptism to purify you, your deeds and charity are to be an eternal baptism for you.” “Though,” he says, “we speak thus” and close the door of mercy before the just ones least they may sin, nevertheless the door of mercy is opened for penitents. “God is not so unjust as to overlook your work,” That is, your gift, “and the love” which you have for the saints and the poor who are in Jerusalem. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.

St. John Chrysostom agreed with this interpretation of Hebrews 6:6 and wrote: *“They crucify,” he says, “the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.” What he means is this. Baptism is a cross, and “our old self was crucified with him,” for we were “united with him in a death like his” and again, “we were buried therefore with him by baptism into death.” Therefore, it is not possible that Christ should be crucified a second time, for that is to “hold him up to contempt.” …]. He then that baptizes a second time crucifies him again… On the Epistle to the Hebrews 9.6; *quoting from Hebrews 6:6; Romans 6:4 & 6; and Philippians 3:10].

 

[NotWorthy]

Also, the Romans in the 3rd century understood the magnitude of Baptism to Christians, if not the full meaning (or else they would have converted themselves).

During the persecution of the Roman Emperor Decius [250-261] an edict was issued which tried to stamp out Christianity entirely by forbidding the preaching of the Gospel and the reception of Baptism.

I got this from AgapeBibleStudy.com in their stufy of Hebrews.

 

[Phil12123]

Nowhere does the Bible prohibit infant Baptism or demand a “believers” Baptism.

Who did Jesus tell them to baptize? Search the entire scriptural record of the early church (the Book of Acts) and tell me who His disciples, in fact, baptized. Can you find a single verse that unequivocably says a nonbeliever (whether infant or adult) was baptized with the hope that maybe some day they will become a believer in Jesus Christ?

 

[Phil12123]

Malachi, please don’t try to confuse us with the facts!!!

Don’t worry. He isn’t.

 

[NotWorthy]

Don’t worry. He isn’t.

BTW, who is John MacArthur?

 

[Phil12123]

The following guys are a “little” older than Mr. MacArthur, but evidently they’ve followed the teachings of the Christian Church a little more closely than Mr. MacArthur, too.

Well, if they followed “the teachings of the Christian Church,” how did they ignore the teaching of the Scriptures unless that church was also ignoring that teaching? For example, consider the following:

**Tertullian

“Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none”** (ibid., 12).

**Origen

“It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism” (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235])**.

Both of the above statements are absolutely false. The thief on the cross was saved and forgiven without baptism. Cornelius and his group received the Holy Spirit without first being water baptized.

 

[Phil12123]

BTW, who is John MacArthur?

**He is a graduate *cum laude *of the Phil12123 School of Biblical Interpretation.

Seriously, he is a pastor, author, Bible teacher and publisher. Do a Google search of him. He has some huge church in California, I think.**

 

[Phil12123]

**I agree with MacArthur’s (and Peter’s?) analogy of Noah’s ark, which saved 8 souls from the flood waters, and Jesus Christ, Who saves all souls who put their trust in Him and His work of redemption at Calvary, including His death for their sins and resurrection. It is a Person and His Work that saves us, not the external ritual or rite that He commanded be performed on those who have believed the Gospel message and accepted Him as Savior and Lord.

Only being IN Christ saves us, just as being IN the ark saved Noah and the others. We are placed IN Christ by the Holy Spirit the moment we repent and trust in the Savior. That is when the Spirit baptizes, or immerses, or places us into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).**

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, if they followed “the teachings of the Christian Church,” how did they ignore the teaching of the Scriptures unless that church was also ignoring that teaching? For example, consider the following:

Both of the above statements are absolutely false. The thief on the cross was saved and forgiven without baptism. Cornelius and his group received the Holy Spirit without first being water baptized.

The Thief on the Cross most definately was baptized. Catholics teach that he received a full baptism of Desire (or of Blood, I’m not sure which, but I think its desire since he wasn’t martyred).

Cornelius and his Group received an extraordianry gift of the Holy Spirit. This was to show Peter that the Gentiles need to be a part of the Covenant. If it hadn’t, then Peter may not have reacted so authoritatively to include them in the Covenant. Notice he uses their Holy Spirit-ness to justify his actions.

You and I can’t bet our salvation on extraordinary means, so we have to depend on the ordinary means of God’s promises.
This includes Baptism.

 

[NotWorthy]

**He is a graduate *cum laude ***of the Phil12123 School of Biblical Interpretation.

Seriously, he is a pastor, author, Bible teacher and publisher. Do a Google search of him. He has some huge church in California, I think.

Yeah, I did. He seems to be a very knowledgable Bible Scholar, but his teachings seem to be influenced by his non-Catholic beliefs.

I read a book of his that described the twelve Apostles. It was pretty good, but he went to extra pains to minimize Peter’s primacy.

BTW, I didn’t recognize him until I did a google search of him.

 

[jmcrae]

Who did Jesus tell them to baptize? Search the entire scriptural record of the early church (the Book of Acts) and tell me who His disciples, in fact, baptized. Can you find a single verse that unequivocably says a nonbeliever (whether infant or adult) was baptized with the hope that maybe some day they will become a believer in Jesus Christ?

Children growing up with Christian parents are already disciples - this is not a “some day” thing, since they are already being taught the Gospel; they are already attending Sunday School, their names are being added to the wait list of the local Catholic school, and so on. There is no reason not to baptize them as infants, this being the case.

Keep in mind, we are not baptizing every infant in the world, but only those who are being brought up in faithfully devout Catholic homes, who are already being taught to pray to Jesus and to give their hearts to Him - this began while they were still in the womb, and continues as their mothers talk to them, sing to them, and pray with them, often many times a day.

It astounds me, though, that people who consider themselves faithful Christians, and even call themselves “Evangelical” would not want their children to be Christians while living in their homes, and would not want to have them baptized, so as to begin to teach them the ways of Christ. Why should any Christian parent wish his or her child to be a pagan, and “choose later” for himself or herself what religion to follow, without allowing the child to receive the graces of Baptism that would allow him to be able to receive the Gospel?

 

[NotWorthy]

I agree with MacArthur’s (and Peter’s?) analogy of Noah’s ark, which saved 8 souls from the flood waters, and Jesus Christ, Who saves all souls who put their trust in Him and His work of redemption at Calvary, including His death for their sins and resurrection.It is a Person and His Work that saves us,not the external ritual or rite that He commanded be performed on those who have believed the Gospel message and accepted Him as Savior and Lord**.**

**Yea and AMEN!!! It is Jesus Christ that saves us!

No solidly grounded Catholic will argue with that. Baptism alone would not save us, except that Christ and the Apostles promised us that He would work through Baptism to save us. Christ does all the work, he just asks for our faith - our obedience is included in this faith. You can’t have saving faith without obedience.

Only being IN Christ saves us

AMEN!

, just as being IN the ark saved Noah and the others.

… as they passed through the waters, just as baptism saves you now.

We are placed IN Christ by the Holy Spirit the moment we repent and trust in the Savior. That is when the Spirit baptizes, or immerses, or places us into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).

**No, it is after Baptism that the Spirit comes down on us. Christ showed us this during His Baptism, which pre-figures our baptism. Water - then Spirit.

This is what all the early Church Fathers taught us. John MacArthur has presented a teaching that is only a couple of hundred years old. Can you show me an ECF that taught this?

 

[Phil12123]

The Thief on the Cross most definately was baptized. Catholics teach that he received a full baptism of Desire (or of Blood, I’m not sure which, but I think its desire since he wasn’t martyred).

There is no such animal in Scripture. Your so-called “baptism of desire” is nowhere taught by Jesus, Peter, James, John, Paul, Jude, in short, by any author of Holy Writ. It is an invention of man which became needed by man’s false interpretation of John 3:5.

Cornelius and his Group received an extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit. This was to show Peter that the Gentiles need to be a part of the Covenant. If it hadn’t, then Peter may not have reacted so authoritatively to include them in the Covenant. Notice he uses their Holy Spirit-ness to justify his actions.

The Holy Spirit could have come after baptism but did not. He came before baptism to teach us something, namely, that He does not wait for man and his water to move and act and do His sovereign work. It also teaches us that it is not water baptism that produces cleansing and forgiveness of sin, both of which would have been required for that group to receive that extraordinary gift.