Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[guanophore]

Phil12123;2690211:

Yes, we do see things differently. Otherwise, we would not be on page 43 of this thread. I see circumcision as that which God commanded Abraham to be performed on male Jews as a sign of the Old Covenant and a means of identifying all Jewish males with that Covenant. Let’s look at it:

The New Covenant is, essentially, the Gospel, the good news that God sent His only Son to live a perfect life and then shed His blood for the remission of the sins of all who repent and put their faith in Him and His Work of redemption at Calvary. God covenants with the sinner that when he repents and believes in Jesus, his sins will be forgiven.

I think we are in agreement on all these points.
Phil12123;2690211:

Baptism is the sign that a person has done that and has his sins forgiven and has received eternal life.

Where do you find this in scripture?

I agree, that Baptism, along with all the sacraments, is a “sign”,but, as with all sacraments, it also effects that which it signifies.

1 Peter 3:21-22
21** Baptism**, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

When Jesus gives the commandment to preach and make disciples, baptism accompanies the command. Therefore, baptism is not to be separated from the Gospel message.

Scripture also teaches us that people are added to the Church through Baptism, that Baptism washes away sin, and brings us into union with Christ in His death and resurrection. It ,much more than just a sign.
Phil12123;2690211:

Circumcision identified a person with the chosen people of God, with whom God had a special relationship (not by faith or anything extrinsically special, but solely by God’s choosing, Deut. 7:6-8). Baptism identifies a person with the new relationship he has with God through Christ, which relationship is entered when he repents and puts his faith in Christ. A person submitting to baptism is saying, I have done that; I have repented; I have believed in Christ.

I don’t think we have any disagreement on these points either.
Phil12123;2690211:

So, a person does not enter the New Covenant by baptism. He enters by repentance and faith, and baptism is the sign that he has entered.

The Church teaches that all these factors are part of the same event. In baptism, our repentance and faith is operated upon by the HS, as we are transferred from the kingdom of darkness, into the kingdom of light. Baptism washes away the sins of which a person has turned in repentance.
Phil12123;2690211:

And that is why it is not appropriate for infants. They have not repented or believed in Jesus. Not yet anyway. And no one can do that for them. Until they do it themselves for themselves, they are not, and should not, be baptized.

Well, we see it differently. The Catholic Church teaches all the points you have made about “believers baptism” with regard to adults. She teaches more than you have stated here also, about the sacramental nature of Baptism. But we also believe that Baptism has replaced Circumcision as an initiation rite into the new covenant.

Col 2:10-12
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."

In baptism we are buried with Christ,and in coming up out of the water, are joined with Him in His resurrected life. We put off the body of flesh, and are filled with the Spirit.

Catholics believe that children should be raised in the faith, and when they are old enough to take personal responsibility for their faith, they baptismal rite is complemented by Confirmation, where they repeat for themselves the pledge of faith made on their behalf by their parents and Godparents.

For the OP, though, I want to state that there is ONLY ONE BAPTISM for the forgiveness of sins, and that it is not necessary to be baptized more than once. It is beneficial, though, to repeat one’s baptismal vows regularly, as we often do when neophytes are being baptized, and yearly during the Easter season.

 

[guanophore]

Exactly what “evidence” that the Apostles baptized infants are you referring to? Surely, the Apostles followed Christ’s instructions to baptize “disciples” they made out of all nations (Matt. 28) and “he who believes” (Mark 16), so we should be able to conclude that there is NO evidence they baptized infants.

I don’t have time to find the early liturgies now, but maybe I can after Mass.

The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

You also have to consider that the Orthodox all do this, as they have received from the Apostles. Unlike the Latin church, they also do first communion and confirmation with infants.

 

[Phil12123]

Working in English there are three possible conclusions:

1. Make disciples, then baptize and teach them. Your conclusion.
2. Make disciples by baptizing and teaching.

But Greek grammar allows for neither of these conclusions. So, we are left with.

1. A series of non-sequential commands:
   a. Go making disciples
   b. Go, baptizing
   c. Go, teaching.

**I notice you left off the word “them” in 3) b & c — baptizing them, teaching them. And you did not respond to my grammatical analysis. So, to whom is the “them” referring in your series of non-sequential commands? If “disciples” is not the antecedent noun, what is?

I would also like to know why you think the Greek grammar does not allow for 1). You have already stated in your post #283, p. 19, that the Greek grammar does not allow for 2). Please explain it for 1).**

But let us suppose just for one moment that we do all of these things in this abc order. How does even that preclude infant baptism? Can you not hear the Catholic response? That’s right, when children are born into a Christian household, at that very moment we claim them for Jesus and make them disciples.

Disciple doesn’t have to equate with believer. Disciple only means student, learner. Judas Iscariot was a disciple; he hardly qualifies as a believer. Or see John 6:60-66, many of Jesus’ disciples turned away and quit following him. But, vs. 69, Peter believed. Thus there were many more disciples than there were believers in Jesus’ ministry.

You are correct that in the general sense as used in various passages in the gospels, some of which you have cited, “disciple” and “believer” may not always be synonymous. The word “disciple” can mean just a learner or follower, however temporary. Nevertheless, the word “disciple” in Matt. 28:19 means believer, convert, someone who has heard the Gospel message, repented and accepted Christ as Savior and Lord. I get that from reading Matt. 28:19 in conjunction with Mark 16, which gives the means of making believers (preaching the Gospel) and includes both their believing and being baptized. Mark 16 would indicate that only believers are baptized. Baptism of nonbelievers is not even contemplated. So, I would conclude that to be consistent, Jesus was saying in Matt. 28 only disciples who are true believers are to be baptized. I consider it sounder hermeneutics to relate Mark 16 to Matt. 28 than John 6 to Matt. 28. So, reading Matt. 28 and Mark 16 together, Jesus commanded that disciples who believed the Gospel message and were committed to Christ (repenting, believing, etc.) were to be baptized. A family with an infant may “claim” the infant for Jesus, as you say, but that does not a disciple (or believer) make.

Now, I’m not arguing that we should baptize adult athiests, but I see it doing no damage to the gospel to make disciples of young children, baptize them into the community of faith, and then continue to teach them. And, why not adult athiests? Because they are not willing to be disciples.

How does baptizing an infant, who has no faith, “into the community faith” not trivialize the Gospel? Until it has faith, the infant is already in the community in terms of being raised by members of the faith community. When it has its own faith, it then truly becomes a member of the faith community. Not before. As I mentioned in some other post, to baptize an infant displays lack of faith on the parents’ part, that somehow their soul is in jeopardy without baptism, when in fact it is not. And what of the infant who grows up and never professes any faith, despite all the best efforts of the parents to raise it in a godly manner, etc. What did the baptism as an infant accomplish? When the infant reaches the age of reason and rejects the Gospel, he or she becomes as any other nonbeliever or pagan, so the infant baptism accomplished nothing, showing, logically, that Christ never commanded it in the first place.

Where you and Catholic beliefs on baptism agree, and where you both disagree with my view, is that you both think that baptism makes a person a Christian and I think that it is belief that makes a person a Christian. So, yes, in baptizing infants, I am baptizing non-Christians, but people who, like Judas, are nontheless disciples of Christ.

**How did you reach that conclusion about my view after reading any number of my posts? I never said baptism makes a person a Christian, and I’ve repeatedly said it is repentance and faith that makes a person a Christian, with baptism merely identifying the new Christian with the other believers and the community of faith.

Lastly, you admit that in baptizing infants you are baptizing non-Christians, and you think that is what Christ commanded you to do? Based on… people like Judas being a “disciple” of Christ? That is very shaky ground, shaky hermeneutics, to say the least.
**

 

[guanophore]

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no ambiguity. Jesus commanded that only disciples were to be baptized.

Why would you assume that children cannot be taught to be disciples of Jesus?

Not so. Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but neither is good works, but that does not mean they shouldn’t be done. Those who teach water baptism is not necessary for salvation still get baptized, to be obedient to the Lord’s command, not to get saved. On the other hand, if Jesus says baptize disciples, YOU are disobedient if you baptize a non-disciple infant.

It seems rather presumptuous to pick and choose which of the Lord’s commands are “necessary” or not. Why would He command His disciples to do something, especially in this context, that was unnecessary?

Raising children to be good disciples of Jesus is the duty of every Christian. Waiting until they are adults to teach them is a mockery of God’s gift.

 

[guanophore]

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no ambiguity. Jesus commanded that only disciples were to be baptized.

Why would you assume that children cannot be taught to be disciples of Jesus?

Not so. Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but neither is good works, but that does not mean they shouldn’t be done. Those who teach water baptism is not necessary for salvation still get baptized, to be obedient to the Lord’s command, not to get saved. On the other hand, if Jesus says baptize disciples, YOU are disobedient if you baptize a non-disciple infant.

It seems rather presumptuous to pick and choose which of the Lord’s commands are “necessary” or not. Why would He command His disciples to do something, especially in this context, that was unnecessary?

Raising children to be good disciples of Jesus is the duty of every Christian. Waiting until they are adults to teach them is a mockery of God’s gift. We are told to bring up a chld in the way he should go.

No, it is incumbent on you to show Jesus commanded it, when His clear words of Matt. 28 and Mark 16 indicate otherwise.

The clear words do not indicate “otherwise”. This command relates to adults. It does not necessarily preclude children.
Phil12123;2694514:

No, it is incumbent on you

to show Jesus commanded it, when His clear words of Matt. 28 and Mark 16 indicate otherwise.

Are we to baptize the family dog, too? Of course not. But why not? It is part of the household. Why not baptize it?

Are you equating the eternal soul of a child, made in the image and likeness of God, to an “it” or a “dog”? Geez. Do you really have such little regard for infants?!

Because Jesus did not command it; the family dog is not a disciple, nor is any infant. The fact that the infant may some day become

a disciple or believer in Christ is irrelevant. Until he or she does, he or she is not a proper candidate for baptism, according to Christ’s instructions.

Well, ok. I can agree to disagree with you on this point. Catholics see baptism as a replacement for cirucumcision,a nd there is no age requirement. Children who are born to covenant members are presumed to be born into the covenant. Catholics have no problem with baptizing adults, either, after a profession of faith.

 

[guanophore]

You don’t make a person a disciple by baptizing them. They become a disciple by repentance and faith. *THEN *you baptize them.

This is true, for adults. But children, who have not reached the age of reason, are not able to make the same choices about sin, repentance, and faith as adults. They are, however, able to be taught right from wrong, learn to pray, and other things that adult disciples are taught. The approach to discipling children is different than making disciples out of adults, b ut no less important, and baptism is no less essential. Since you deny the sacramental graces that come from baptism, it is understandible that you would not understand why it is so important tnot to wait.

 

[guanophore]

Well, then help me understand. WHAT is so hard about Jesus’ words in Matt. 28 and Mark 16 that anyone cannot understand them, if they truly want to obey Him? It is not a matter of ambiguous words that need some special understanding that only a select few can grasp. All the words are simple enough for a child to understand. It is not understanding that is the key. It is simple obedience. Do we DO what He said, or do we do something else? That is the issue. The ONLY issue.

John 6:53-59
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

I confess that I do not understand this. How come you don’t just DO WHAT HE SAYS here? In the area of baptizing disciples, you are willing to take the text as the be all and end all, the literal and definitive word. But you can’t do the same with Jn. 6? I don’t get it.

Matt 3:5-6
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins."

Does “all” here refer to only men? Only adults? No children?

 

[Phil12123]

Why would you assume that children cannot be taught to be disciples of Jesus?

Are we talking about “infant baptism” or “children baptism”? A child who IS a disciple, i.e., a believer, a convert, a sinner who has repented of sin and received Christ as Savior and Lord, CAN and SHOULD BE baptized. But not an infant, who is none of those things. Certainly ALL children should be taught, and when that teaching eventually results in the child’s knowing he is a sinner in need of a Savior, and that Jesus came to suffer and die for the child’s sins, and rise again, and when that child embraces Jesus as Savior and Lord, then and only then, should the child be baptized.

Raising children to be good disciples of Jesus is the duty of every Christian. Waiting until they are adults to teach them is a mockery of God’s gift.

No one says we wait until children are adults to teach them. And no one says wait until they are adults to baptize them. We should teach them from a very early age. We should baptize them as soon as they become believers. The debate is not infant baptism vs. adult baptism. It is infant baptism vs. believer’s baptism. Please don’t confuse the two.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

How did you reach that conclusion about my view after reading any number of my posts? I never said baptism makes a person a Christian, and I’ve repeatedly said it is repentance and faith that makes a person a Christian, with baptism merely identifying the new Christian with the other believers and the community of faith.

First, let me say, on this I stand corrected. I mis-spoke and attributed views to you which are NOT what you had previously expressed. Indeed that were in fact contrary to what you have said. My apologies.

I notice you left off the word “them” in 3) b & c — baptizing them, teaching them. And you did not respond to my grammatical analysis. So, to whom is the “them” referring in your series of non-sequential commands? If “disciples” is not the antecedent noun, what is?

The antecedent to the English term “them” indeed refers to those that one has made disciples of.

I would also like to know why you think the Greek grammar does not allow for 1). You have already stated in your post #283, p. 19, that the Greek grammar does not allow for 2). Please explain it for 1).

Because the Greek terms for baptize and teach are present participles, in particular they are participles of manner (source: A Linguist Key to the Greek New Testament, Fritz Rienecker, 1976, Zondervan) meaning that they convey the manner (but not the means) in which one goes about making the disciples. Yes, there is a difference. As a means, baptism automatically creates a disciple. But it doesn’t. This is where I disagree with the Catholic and Lutheran interpretations. But as I said in in post #283, baptism and teaching still do characterize the disciple making process. And this participle of manner implies that one of the things we do with disciples is to baptize them and teach them. We do this not because they have reached the end of the discipling and are now fully formed disciples of Jesus Christ, but as part of the discipling process itself. Again, let me reiterate, baptism is not the means by which someone is to become a disciple, nor is it the end result of disciple (just as teaching is not the end result of being made into a disciple); both baptism and teaching are simply parts of the process that one who is a disciple and growing in that discipleship experience.

While most of this discussion has focused on the nouns and verbs, let me direct everyone’s attention to a simple preposition:

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος διδασκοντες αυτους τηρειν παντα οσα ενετειλαμην υμιν και ιδου εγω μεθ υμων ειμι πασας τας ημερας εως της συντελειας του αιωνος

The little word “εις” (eis) is most frequently translated “in”. But what does it mean to baptize “in the name of”? It doesn’t mean to simply baptize using that name. It means to baptize into the possession of; such possession of the individual (by God in this instance) while not (IMO) being a means of salvation is nonetheless still a means of grace. That is in baptism a vital union is established between the individual and God.

**You are correct that in the general sense as used in various passages in the gospels, some of which you have cited, “disciple” and “believer” may not always be synonymous. The word “disciple” can mean just a learner or follower, however temporary. Nevertheless, the word “disciple” in Matt. 28:19 means believer, convert, someone who has heard the Gospel message, repented and accepted Christ as Savior and Lord. I get that from reading Matt. 28:19 in conjunction with Mark 16, which gives the means of making believers (preaching the Gospel) and includes both their believing and being baptized. Mark 16 would indicate that only believers are baptized. Baptism of nonbelievers is not even contemplated. So, I would conclude that to be consistent, Jesus was saying in Matt. 28 only disciples who are true believers are to be baptized. I consider it sounder hermeneutics to relate Mark 16 to Matt. 28 than John 6 to Matt. 28. So, reading Matt. 28 and Mark 16 together, Jesus commanded that disciples who believed the Gospel message and were committed to Christ (repenting, believing, etc.) were to be baptized. A family with an infant may “claim” the infant for Jesus, as you say, but that does not a disciple (or believer) make.

Lastly, you admit that in baptizing infants you are baptizing non-Christians, and you think that is what Christ commanded you to do? Based on… people like Judas being a “disciple” of Christ? That is very shaky ground, shaky hermeneutics, to say the least.
**

(Not lastly because I’ve reordered your post.)

Phil, you make a great deal out of linking Matthew 28:19-20 with Mark 16:15-16. As far as shaky ground goes, I’m afraid you’ve stepped into quicksand. It is highly improbably that Mark 16:9-20 was originally even a part of the gospel of Mark. This is not the opinion of just a group of liberal theologians on a debunking spree. It is the view of almost every New Testament scholar – liberal, conservative, even fundamentalists. I’ll not go into all of the detail, but provide for you the concluding remarks on this passage from The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, general editor, 1984, Zondervan. (The Commentary on Mark was written by Walter Wessel; read Dr. Wessel’s obit here: Bethel Remembers Walter Wessel)

the best solution seems to be that Mark did write an ending to his Gospel but that it was lost in the early transmissions of the text. The endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking.

What you are citing is church tradition, not the words of Jesus.

And again, even in the passage, the link between baptism and belief is not as cause and effect as you presume. Try this sentence on, whoever is a US citizen and is 18 years of age can vote. It is quite possible to be a US citizen and not be 18 years of age. It is also possible to be 18 years of age and not be a US citizen. You want to qualify to vote, then both must be true. Likewise, it is possible to understand this passage to speak of the need for two separate conditions needing to be meant in order to achieve salvation (1) baptism and (2) belief. And this fits with the practice of the church which tacked this ending on to the Gospel of Mark. They did baptize infants, infants who did not have faith. But such infants were to be raised in the faith. They were disciples even though they may not yet be believers. But, when they reached the point where they possessed this faith for themselves, then they would confirm the faith of their baptism, making their own profession of faith as believers. Only after both elements were true in their lives did the church understand them to be saved.

Now, personally, I disagree with that tradition, because I think that one can be saved apart from baptism, based on belief alone. And that brings us to what in my reordering of your points is your final comment, and (IMO) your best question:

 

[Grace_Seeker]

:

How does baptizing an infant, who has no faith, “into the community faith” not trivialize the Gospel? Until it has faith, the infant is already in the community in terms of being raised by members of the faith community. When it has its own faith, it then truly becomes a member of the faith community. Not before. As I mentioned in some other post, to baptize an infant displays lack of faith on the parents’ part, that somehow their soul is in jeopardy without baptism, when in fact it is not. And what of the infant who grows up and never professes any faith, despite all the best efforts of the parents to raise it in a godly manner, etc. What did the baptism as an infant accomplish? When the infant reaches the age of reason and rejects the Gospel, he or she becomes as any other nonbeliever or pagan, so the infant baptism accomplished nothing, showing, logically, that Christ never commanded it in the first place.

I said I think it is your best question. But I do dispute some of your premises.
First, having an infant baptized does not necessarily show lack of faith on a parent’s part. One could present a child for baptism without by doing so implying that one perceives that child’s soul in jeopardy. It is true that some are motivated only by that concern, but that does not mean that this is what would motivate all parents. Some might simply wish to bring the child for baptism because they understand that Christ invites all persons to him. They bring their children just as the children of 1st century Palestine were drawn to Jesus himself. They are baptized into the faith because the believe parents understand that everything they have belongs not to them but to God, this includes their children. They do it because Peter told those who wanted to know what they should do as they came to faith (in Acts 2:38ff) that not only should they repent and be baptized themselves so that their sins may be forgiven and they they might receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, but because Peter also declared that this promise was not for the adult only, but for them for their children.

And you ask, “What of the infant who grows up and never possess faith?” Well, what of them? Not being a person who believes that baptism alone saves the individual, I would simply say that such a person is not saved. You seem to find this to be repugnant, that a baptized person might not be a professing Christian. I would of course hope for all persons to come to faith in Christ, but I see that Jesus lost many of his disciples. In point of fact, he lost most of them. So, I can live with the fact that not all persons, not even all baptized persons will become believers. You think this means that baptism accomplished nothing. I do not.

First, the practice of baptism is one of obedience to Christ’s command. I don’t understand why Christ tells us to do all of the things that he has told us to do. Why I (who learned to drive when the speed limit was 70) must drive 55 on the highway in obedience to authorities that themselves speed around me at significanlty greater speeds, why when God blessed the unions of the partiarchs of the old covenant to many wives and concubines that he tells us it shall be one man and one woman, I don’t even know why we are enjoined to practice hospitality. But I don’t have to know the reasons; it is enough to know that this is what God asks of us. And being obedient to God in small things is a way that I have learned to be obedient to God in larger things.

Second, as I have mention repeatedly, the practice of baptism is about more than just the faith of the one being baptized. It is a proclamation of the faith of the entire church. It has value for that reason if no other. In it the church, not the baptized one, proclaims their faith in the power of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

But probably most importantly, it conveys God prevenient grace. Because of the nature of sin, each and every one of us is born not even able to seek God. We are all dependant on the God who by his grace seeks us before we are enabled to respond in faith. Baptism is both a reminder and a conveyer of such grace active in our lives. So, yes, baptism is important even for unbelieving infants. Note we did not say disbelieving infants. An unbeliever is one who has not formed faith. A disbeliever is different; a disbeliever, such as an athiest, has formed a belief and that particular belief is to not trust in God. But that is not the case of the infant. With the infant baptism is a means by which God touches their soul and awakens it on the spiritual level to an awareness of his presence. It is not a cognitive event, and perhaps in thinking of it purely as a cognitive exercise you have prevented yourself from seeing what it is that God is doing in reaching out to us and sharing his grace with us in baptism. Yes, in baptism God shares himself with us. He shares himself with the believer, but he just as surely shares himself with the unbelieving infant, for God’s grace is not limited by our cognitive acceptance of any doctrine. God’s grace is simply God’s to give in in baptism we are proclaiming that God is indeed gracious in this way with adult believer and young infant alike.

 

[Phil12123]

The clear words do not indicate “otherwise”. This command relates to adults. It does not necessarily preclude children.

**And why do you conclude Christ’s command in Matt. 28 and Mark 16 “relates to adults”? You do realize, don’t you, that those two passages are the ONLY scriptures in which Jesus says that anyone should be baptized? That being the case, by saying they relate to adults, you are forced to conclude that Jesus commanded that only adults be baptized.

On the other hand, I don’t say His commands in Matt. 28 and Mark 16 “relates to adults,” though they certainly do not relate to infants or children younger than the age of reason. So, you are correct that “it does not necessarily preclude children” i.e. children who have reached the age of reason.**

Are you equating the eternal soul of a child, made in the image and likeness of God, to an “it” or a “dog”? Geez. Do you really have such little regard for infants?!

Of course not. You must have missed my point. In the discussion of household baptisms, infants would no more be baptized simply because their parents were believers than the family pet (also a “member” of the household), because Jesus did not command that infants be baptized any more than He commanded family pets be baptized.

Catholics see baptism as a replacement for cirucumcision, and there is no age requirement. Children who are born to covenant members are presumed to be born into the covenant. Catholics have no problem with baptizing adults, either, after a profession of faith.

**When does the profession of faith become a requirement for adults, young adults, children, young children, infants? What age? Where and when do you draw the line?

God told Abraham that males were to be circumcised at 8 days. No profession of faith was ever a requirement for circumcision. Not so in the case of baptism. Faith was always a requirement for baptism. Nonbelievers were never baptized.
**

 

[minkymurph]

Phil12123 - I have been reading your posts and forgive me if I am asking something you have already answered as it’s a very long thread and I speedread some of it. At what age would you say a child is capable of repenting and becoming a disciple? If a child dies before it has reached that age of discernment, does it go to heaven? I understand from your posts that you have an objection to infant baptism and I’m curious as to why you have such a strong objection. Do you believe that people who have their children baptized are doing something that God thinks is wrong and would condemn them for? Or do you believe it’s something that’s just not for you and yours?

 

[Phil12123]

Phil12123 - I have been reading your posts and forgive me if I am asking something you have already answered as it’s a very long thread and I speedread some of it. At what age would you say a child is capable of repenting and becoming a disciple? If a child dies before it has reached that age of discernment, does it go to heaven? I understand from your posts that you have an objection to infant baptism and I’m curious as to why you have such a strong objection. ** Do you believe that people who have their children baptized are doing something that God thinks is wrong and would condemn them for?** Or do you believe it’s something that’s just not for you and yours?

**You’ve asked several good questions and I will try to answer them as best I can, based on my understanding of the Scriptures.

The question of the age at which a child is capable of repenting and becoming a disciple is difficult since it may be different for different children. Some are much more mature than others, so I don’t think a specific age can be stated for all children. It is clear that many children at a very young age know right from wrong and do their best to test their limits, etc. I don’t believe the Scriptures give an age, so I won’t add to them by writing my own.

I believe, though with sparse Scriptural support, that a child who dies before reaching the age of reason/discernment goes to heaven, based on the grace and mercy of God and on Christ’s having died for their sins (if any).

I think people who baptize their infants are doing something that God never commanded and therefore is something that accomplishes nothing. Children should be taught from a very young age, as young as their little minds can receive truth. But they should not be baptized until they repent and believe the Gospel and accept Christ as Savior and Lord. Many people not knowing any better, or based on some longstanding tradition, baptize their infants out of ignorance of the Scriptures. God is not as displeased with them as I think He is with those who tenaciously hold to and teach the false doctrine that babies should be baptized as soon after birth as possible. But in neither case am I the One before Whom they will stand at the judgment. They are not condemned to hell for that alone, IMHO, but they might very well be asked by Jesus, “Did I tell you to baptize your babies?” And, of course, He did not.**

 

[jmcrae]

I believe, though with sparse Scriptural support, that a child who dies before reaching the age of reason/discernment goes to heaven, based on the grace and mercy of God and on Christ’s having died for their sins.

How can they go to Heaven, if they have never personally received His Grace, neither through baptism, nor through personal faith?

 

[Phil12123]

How can they go to Heaven, if they have never personally received His Grace, neither through baptism, nor through personal faith?

Because they are innocent of any personal sin and therefore have nothing that would keep them out of heaven. Jesus said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” referring to that innocence.

 

[guanophore]

And why do you conclude Christ’s command in Matt. 28 and Mark 16 “relates to adults”? You do realize, don’t you, that those two passages are the ONLY scriptures in which Jesus says that anyone should be baptized? That being the case, by saying they relate to adults, you are forced to conclude that Jesus commanded that only adults be baptized.

Well, perhaps I am not expressing myself well. Jesus is giving the great commission. He is telling the disciples to go forth to teach, make disciples, and baptize. At the time, they may have thought he would be back very shortly, and there would not be any time for believers to have babies!

The Catholic Church does not derive her understanding on baptism solely from the sayings of Jesus in the gospels. Jesus does NOT say “anyone” should be baptized. He says to baptize the disciples that are made. Disciples can be made out of children too, from the time they are born (and before).
Phil12123;2700159:

Of course not. You must have missed my point. In the discussion of household baptisms, infants would no more be baptized simply because their parents were believers than the family pet (also a “member” of the household), because Jesus did not command that infants be baptized any more than He commanded family pets be baptized.

I did not miss that discussion. I found it offensive that you would compare an infant to a family pet. I also said that, since you don’t understand the sacramental graces that are poured out at baptism, then you may not understand why it would be beneficial to baptize an infant.

When does the profession of faith become a requirement for adults, young adults, children, young children, infants? What age? Where and when do you draw the line?

These are excellent questions that have been debated by the Church for 2000 years. The Orthodox baptize, give communion, and confirmation all at the same time. In the Latin Rite, they are separated from each other.

God told Abraham that males were to be circumcised at 8 days. No profession of faith was ever a requirement for circumcision. Not so in the case of baptism. Faith was always a requirement for baptism. Nonbelievers were never baptized.

Infants are baptized, but only with a profession of faith. The profession is made by the parents and the godparents. They vow to raise the child in the faith. I am not sure you could say that circumcision does not require a profession of faith. How can a person be a member of a faith covenant with no faith?

 

[Phil12123]

Jesus does NOT say “anyone” should be baptized. He says to baptize the disciples that are made.

**What I meant was, Matt. 28 and Mark 16 are the only passages in which Jesus tells anyone to baptize anyone, i.e., the only commands recorded in Scripture in which Jesus commands that a person is to be baptized. So, if they are referring to “adult baptism,” as you say, then Jesus commanded only adults be baptized. And then I said, I believe they are not referring solely to adult baptism, but to believer’s baptism, since a person need not be an adult to become a disciple (believer) who then should be baptized.

You are correct that He says to baptize the disciples that are made.**

Disciples can be made out of children too, from the time they are born (and before).

No, not until they repent and believe the Gospel. How do you define “disciple”? Learner only, rather than believer? How can you say an infant or one before birth is a learner of the Gospel?

These are excellent questions that have been debated by the Church for 2000 years. The Orthodox baptize, give communion, and confirmation all at the same time. In the Latin Rite, they are separated from each other.

And what has the church decided after 2000 years of debate? When must a person make his own profession of faith before he will be baptized in your church? At 5? 10? 15? When he reaches the age of reason and discernment, whenever that is?

Infants are baptized, but only with a profession of faith. The profession is made by the parents and the godparents. They vow to raise the child in the faith.

That is hardly a “profession of faith.” The parents and godparents can vow to raise the child in the faith, but they cannot repent or believe for the child, professing faith in Christ, etc.

I am not sure you could say that circumcision does not require a profession of faith. How can a person be a member of a faith covenant with no faith?

**Show me where there was any requirement in the OT for a Jew to have any faith before being circumcised. I don’t think you can. Obviously, an 8-day old baby has no faith, and is not required to. **

 

[NotWorthy]

Because they are innocent of any personal sin and therefore have nothing that would keep them out of heaven. Jesus said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” referring to that innocence.

I think St. Paul would disagree with this statement. In Romans chapter 5, he tells us

For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all.

What abundance of grace and gift of justification do un-baptized babies receive?

 

[guanophore]

**
You are correct that He says to baptize the disciples that are made.**
Phil12123;2701571:

**No, not until they repent and believe the Gospel. **

This is the case in the book of Acts because we have here a description of the neophyte Church. At the time it was written, no one was thinking they would be around long enough for a second generation to be born.

How do you define “disciple”?

For the sake of this discussion, I would say a follower of the Way of the Lord Jesus.

Learner only, rather than believer?

I think it is not possible to learn the ways of the Lord without faith.

How can you say an infant or one before birth

is a learner of the Gospel?

I didn’t say that. I said that the commandment to “make disciples” can start while the baby is still in the womb. The parents can pray for the child to be a faithful follower of Jesus. The mother can honor this future disciple by making sure she does not expose it to anything unhealthy (like drugs) and to have good pre-natal care. this will allow the baby to develop a healthy brain, so when it is old enough a choice for Jesus can be made.

**And what has the church decided after 2000 years of debate? **

That babies may be baptized on the basis of their parents’ faith, when the parents commit to bring up the child in the knowlege and fear of the Lord.

When must a person make his own profession of faith before he will be baptized in your church? At 5? 10? 15? When he reaches the age of reason and discernment, whenever that is?

Persons are baptized at all of those ages. As a person gets older, they have many opportunities to renew their baptismal vows as their understanding of what they mean improves.

B]That is hardly a “profession of faith.” The parents and godparents can vow to raise the child in the faith, but they cannot repent or believe for

the child, professing faith in Christ, etc.

Indeed, parents CAN practice their faith for the sake of their children,and a life of repentance and faith in Christ is the absolute BEST example for a child. They will learn what they live.

Show me where there was any requirement in the OT for a Jew to have any faith before being circumcised. I don’t think you can. Obviously, an 8-day old baby has no faith, and is not required to.

I think that will have to go on another thread. however, Babies were circumcised on the basis of their parents faith, and this custom has continued in the New Covenant.

 

[minkymurph]

Phil12123 - I take your point that scripture does not state in black and white, ‘you must baptize your children in those words.’ I would have to say though, neither does it say ‘you must baptize only adults’ in those exact words, it comes down to interpretation. I would say that adults were baptized in the early Christian Church because there was a need for adults to be baptized. The Church was in it’s infancy. Christianity had just been born, the Holy Spirit had just been poured out and through this the Apostles and other early Christians were enlightened. Therefore, many adults were baptized as things had just begun if you know what I mean. In our modern society, Christianity is an established faith. There are established Churches, faith is taught in schools, children are raised in Christian homes. Therefore, I would believe that those who intend to take their responsiblities in raising their child in the faith seriously, can have them baptized and God will respond to their request as their parent, that that child will receive his grace. Of course we pray the child will take the Gospel to it’s heart and respond to the grace God gives which I believe can happen at any age. A baby can respond to the love of it’s parent and while the child cannot write a theological essay or anything like that, I believe it is, by God’s grace, capable of responding in a ‘baby’ way to his love, the God who created the child and gave it life because God can reveal himself even to a baby in a way a baby can understand. Nothing is impossible with God.I would take the view that we become disciples after baptism. Through baptism we become a disciple as I would have difficulty seeing how you need to become a follower of Christ in advance of entering his baptism if you know what I mean. I don’t expect you to agree with me but that is my belief.