Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[NotWorthy]

So please explain the difference. Placing someone under a divine curse is what? Excommunicating them? But not condemning them to hell? How are they “mutually exclusive”?

If someone is accursed, it doesn’t mean that “I put a curse on you”. What is this, Voodoo Central?!?

It means by your own actions, you have made yourself accursed, meaning you are committing grave sin. But a merciful God would take you back in his Graces should you repent.

Condemning someone to hell means you send their soul to hell upon someone’s death. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

The Church makes no claim to this authority.

But seriously, did you think that the Church condemns everyone to hell who doesn’t agree with Her? Is this what you get out of our teachings? And if so, how do I expect you to be able to interpret Scriptures if you make this conclusion out of our teachings?

 

[Phil12123]

This is not consistent with NT teaching, nor the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles.

How can you say that? The New Covenant is all about faith in the risen Lord Who died for sinners, paying the price for their redemption. I can quote dozens of verses from the lips of Jesus and the pens of the Apostles saying “whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life” etc. etc. “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” with no mention at all of baptism in those verses. A person believing in Christ has everlasting life and possesses the Holy Spirit, and yet you say entry into the New Covenant is NOT made by a profession of faith??? Look at Cornelius and his group—receiving the Holy Spirit before any water baptism. It was their faith in the Gospel preached by Peter that gave them entrance into the New Covenant, all before any water baptism.

There are examples in scripture where people make a profession of faith on behalf of others, and ask for Jesus to pour out His grace upon their loved ones. God is especially delighted to do this on behalf of children and the disabled, who may not be able to ask for themselves.

Please give me the examples, chapter and verse.

Jesus did not specify that a person being baptized had to become a disciple. He specified that disciples were to be baptized. We know that some of those who were baptized later abandoned Him.

Jesus did not specify that “a person being baptized had to become a disciple” because He had His disciples baptize only those who had already become disciples, those He had made disciples (John 4:1,2), not infants who were not yet disciples, nor other nonbelievers who were not yet disciples.

Infants cannot make a profession of faith, and it is of no consequence for a parent or godparent to profess they have faith. They are not being baptized. The infants are. So, the infants are being baptized without their profession of faith.

It is of every consequence that a parent or godparent profess their faith,and their commitment to raise the child in that faith. Without that profession and commitment, the child will not be baptized. yes, infants are baptized before they are able to make a profession of faith. And, in following with the Jewish pattern that Jesus lived, they make their own profession of faith when they come of age.

There is no Jewish pattern when it comes to baptism. And we see no NT pattern that Jesus lived that is being followed by baptizing infants and then hoping that they make their own profession of faith later. Jesus was not baptized as an infant. His circumcision was entirely in accordance with Genesis 17 that He be circumcised at 8 days old. If we want to follow Jesus as an example, we would baptize no infants. And we don’t see Jesus or any of His disciples baptizing any infants before they could make their own profession of faith.

 

[MariaG]

OK. But be careful, as I was told that I was sounding very careful, you are sounding very protestant. LOL

Yes, but I do think it is important to acknowledge that non-sacramental Protestants can in fact have a relationship with Christ. I know I did.

(Of course you understand, that I consider as valid sacraments protestant practices of Holy Communion that you may not recognize as being valid sacraments. )

Yes, I understand. And thankfully, I am not in a postion where I have to rule on the validity of it. I have questions in this area which I have yet to recieve an answer that I am fully comfortable with.

I sometimes wonder if, just as the doctrine of there is no salvation outside the Church has developed, that there will not be new understanding on sacramental protestants as well:shrug: I am sure that there will at least 20 who will jump in and say why this is not possible, but again, I have questions on this issue that have not been fully satisfied. But, again, I am not in a position where my judgement on this is necessary.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Yes, but I do think it is important to acknowledge that non-sacramental Protestants can in fact have a relationship with Christ. I know I did.

Yes, I understand. And thankfully, I am not in a postion where I have to rule on the validity of it. I have questions in this area which I have yet to recieve an answer that I am fully comfortable with.

I sometimes wonder if, just as the doctrine of there is no salvation outside the Church has developed, that there will not be new understanding on sacramental protestants as well:shrug: I am sure that there will at least 20 who will jump in and say why this is not possible, but again, I have questions on this issue that have not been fully satisfied. But, again, I am not in a position where my judgement on this is necessary.

Thank-you for your openness.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, but I do think it is important to acknowledge that non-sacramental Protestants can in fact have a relationship with Christ. I know I did.

Yes, I understand. And thankfully, I am not in a postion where I have to rule on the validity of it. I have questions in this area which I have yet to recieve an answer that I am fully comfortable with.

I sometimes wonder if, just as the doctrine of there is no salvation outside the Church has developed, that there will not be new understanding on sacramental protestants as well:shrug: I am sure that there will at least 20 who will jump in and say why this is not possible, but again, I have questions on this issue that have not been fully satisfied. But, again, I am not in a position where my judgement on this is necessary.

I believe that grace abounds. Wherever people come together in the Name of Jesus and do (to the best of their understanding) what he has commanded, there IS grace. Whether it is Sacramental grace, yielding all of the spiritual fruit of the valid, fruitful, Sacraments Christ Himself ordained in Communion with HIS Church on HIS terms is another matter.

I, for one, experienced profound graces both in the reception of the Eucharist and in Confession when I was an Episcopalian. God reaches hearts that are open to him, and when we use HIS language – the language of the sacraments – he is generous with us.

Now that I am Catholic, I repose in the certainty that I am, at last, IN the upper room with the eleven and not just TRYING to be there. God is prodigal with his graces. But it is NOT the SAME without that linear, historical and physical contact through BOTH spirit and flesh all the way back to His own sacred Hands.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I believe that grace abounds. Wherever people come together in the Name of Jesus and do (to the best of their understanding) what he has commanded, there IS grace. Whether it is Sacramental grace, yielding all of the spiritual fruit of the valid, fruitful, Sacraments Christ Himself ordained in Communion with HIS Church on HIS terms is another matter.

I, for one, experienced profound graces both in the reception of the Eucharist and in Confession when I was an Episcopalian. God reaches hearts that are open to him, and when we use HIS language – the language of the sacraments – he is generous with us.

Now that I am Catholic, I repose in the certainty that I am, at last, IN the upper room with the eleven and not just TRYING to be there. God is prodigal with his graces. But it is NOT the SAME without that linear, historical and physical contact through BOTH spirit and flesh all the way back to His own sacred Hands.

I’ll have to take your word for it, as I have not been either Espicopalian nor Catholic. But, though I won’t challenge your personal experience, it is hard for me to imagine that there is more grace in one place, ritual, or experience than another as all grace as a gift from the same God. That doesn’t mean that one’s experience or understanding of that grace might not be greater or enhanced by having received it as a Catholic than as an Episcopalian. I’m certainly in no place to deny your own or any other person’s unique experience. But I would likewise think it might be equally hard for someone else to comment on the degree or manner in which I or any other person has actually experienced God’s grace in our own lives, even if a non-Catholic.

 

[mercygate]

I’ll have to take your word for it, as I have not been either Espicopalian nor Catholic. But, though I won’t challenge your personal experience, it is hard for me to imagine that there is more grace in one place, ritual, or experience than another as all grace as a gift from the same God. That doesn’t mean that one’s experience or understanding of that grace might not be greater or enhanced by having received it as a Catholic than as an Episcopalian. I’m certainly in no place to deny your own or any other person’s unique experience. But I would likewise think it might be equally hard for someone else to comment on the degree or manner in which I or any other person has actually experienced God’s grace in our own lives, even if a non-Catholic.

I don’t see it EXACTLY as more grace but rather as a point of grace according to the obedience of faith, which places us in the unity for which Our Lord so fervently prayed on the night before his death.

There would be other issues for Catholics/Orthodox to address here about sacramental grace as opposed to actual grace in terms of form and intent. But it seems clear to me that since Our Lord has provided these means of grace, it would be fickle of us – if not imprudent to the point of insolence – to ignore the gift. I do believe that there is a sense in which “more” grace is attached to obedience than to disregard.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I don’t see it EXACTLY as more grace but rather as a point of grace according to the obedience of faith, which places us in the unity for which Our Lord so fervently prayed on the night before his death.

There would be other issues for Catholics/Orthodox to address here about sacramental grace as opposed to actual grace in terms of form and intent. But it seems clear to me that since Our Lord has provided these means of grace, it would be fickle of us – if not imprudent to the point of insolence – to ignore the gift. I do believe that there is a sense in which “more” grace is attached to obedience than to disregard.

I would concur with both of those sentiments.

What I was responding to was what I read in your comment where it seemed you had a different, even greater, experience of that grace after experiencing the sacraments as a Catholic than you had as an Episcopalian. I’m not denying that to have been true for you. But, IMO, it hardly follows that it would necessarily be true for others. For instance, again in my own biased opinion and by my own understanding of theological truths, the grace experienced in the sacraments is just a valid and complete for me as a protestant as that which I would experience if I were to become a Catholic.

 

[mercygate]

I would concur with both of those sentiments.

What I was responding to was what I read in your comment where it seemed you had a different, even greater, experience of that grace after experiencing the sacraments as a Catholic than you had as an Episcopalian. I’m not denying that to have been true for you. But, IMO, it hardly follows that it would necessarily be true for others. For instance, again in my own biased opinion and by my own understanding of theological truths, the grace experienced in the sacraments is just a valid and complete for me as a protestant as that which I would experience if I were to become a Catholic.

I understand WHAT you are saying. Of course, for a *Catholic *-- or rather from the Catholic POV, it is not essentially about “my experience” – the sacramental economy is something we receive from the hand of Christ himself.

So even though “my exprience” of sacramental grace HAS been monumentally enhanced since becoming Catholic (I received the gift of tears for one whole YEAR), I value far more the peace of knowing that I am now fully in “the obedience of faith.”

 

[jmcrae]

I’ll have to take your word for it, as I have not been either Espicopalian nor Catholic. But, though I won’t challenge your personal experience, it is hard for me to imagine that there is more grace in one place, ritual, or experience than another as all grace as a gift from the same God. That doesn’t mean that one’s experience or understanding of that grace might not be greater or enhanced by having received it as a Catholic than as an Episcopalian. I’m certainly in no place to deny your own or any other person’s unique experience. But I would likewise think it might be equally hard for someone else to comment on the degree or manner in which I or any other person has actually experienced God’s grace in our own lives, even if a non-Catholic.

When I was Protestant, I used to think it was enough to pray, because I had never experienced anything else. Praying is certainly a wonderful thing, and extremely important - I’m not downplaying that - to pray is infinitely better than not to pray, for sure!!

When I became Catholic, the first Sacrament I experienced was the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and it felt to me as though I was experiencing God for real for the first time in my life - I felt like Plato’s cave men, when they finally got their chains off, and got to go and see what was making the light at the front of their cave.

It is one thing to see and admire the light from the back of the dark cave.

It is something else again (and something much more), to stand at the mouth of the cave, and see what it is that the light illuminates - and then (after receiving the Sacraments of Initiation) to step out of the cave, and begin to explore a world that you never even knew existed, before.

It continues to blow my mind. I wish you could experience it.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

When I was Protestant, I used to think it was enough to pray, because I had never experienced anything else. Praying is certainly a wonderful thing, and extremely important - I’m not downplaying that - to pray is infinitely better than not to pray, for sure!!

When I became Catholic, the first Sacrament I experienced was the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and it felt to me as though I was experiencing God for real for the first time in my life - I felt like Plato’s cave men, when they finally got their chains off, and got to go and see what was making the light at the front of their cave.

It is one thing to see and admire the light from the back of the dark cave.

It is something else again (and something much more), to stand at the mouth of the cave, and see what it is that the light illuminates - and then (after receiving the Sacraments of Initiation) to step out of the cave, and begin to explore a world that you never even knew existed, before.

It continues to blow my mind. I wish you could experience it.

I’m truly happy for you. The thing is, I don’t feel like I’ve ever been stuck at the back of a cave. What you and Mercygate describe as your changes when you came to Catholicism, is what I have always felt since I came to Christ, even though I came as a Protestant. Indeed you articulate some of the emotions of that experience very well; that is why I am able to recognize and celebrate with you the joy you must be experiencing these many years as one who has a more intimate relationship with Christ than you ever had before. May you never lose the peace I know such a walk and relationship also brings with it.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m truly happy for you. The thing is, I don’t feel like I’ve ever been stuck at the back of a cave.

Neither did Plato’s cave men - because they had never known anything else. They thought they were experiencing all that there was of reality.

That’s how I felt when I was Protestant, too - I thought that I was experiencing everything of God that there was to experience, because I had a strong prayer life, and a very intimate connection with Jesus.

 

[mercygate]

I’m truly happy for you. The thing is, I don’t feel like I’ve ever been stuck at the back of a cave. What you and Mercygate describe as your changes when you came to Catholicism, is what I have always felt since I came to Christ, even though I came as a Protestant. Indeed you articulate some of the emotions of that experience very well; that is why I am able to recognize and celebrate with you the joy you must be experiencing these many years as one who has a more intimate relationship with Christ than you ever had before. May you never lose the peace I know such a walk and relationship also brings with it.

Hillaire Belloc used a great image – I may not get this right because I don’t have the quote in front of me. He says that the beauty of the Church, to be appreciated, must be seen from the inside. Critics of the Church are often like people standing outside Chartres Cathedral on a dark night, trying to see the stained glass windows by matchlight and wondering what all the fuss is about.

 

[Lampo]

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]).

Hippolytus

Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. 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

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is 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]).

 

[Phil12123]

If someone is accursed, it doesn’t mean that “I put a curse on you”. What is this, Voodoo Central?!?

It means by your own actions, you have made yourself accursed, meaning you are committing grave sin. But a merciful God would take you back in his Graces should you repent.

Condemning someone to hell means you send their soul to hell upon someone’s death. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

The Church makes no claim to this authority.

But seriously, did you think that the Church condemns everyone to hell who doesn’t agree with Her? Is this what you get out of our teachings? And if so, how do I expect you to be able to interpret Scriptures if you make this conclusion out of our teachings?

**When the RCC says (as at the Council of Trent), “If anyone says [such and such], let him be anathema,” it is not just saying that person is committing grave sin and should repent. Look at the words, “let him be anathema.” If “anathema” means accursed or under a divine curse, and if “let him be” means what it says, then for the church to say of anyone, “let him be accursed,” the church is in effect pronouncing a judgment upon him that he is cursed. It is saying he is cursed, or should be, by God. It is not Voodoo because it is by God, not the devil.

Most Protestants would fit under such curses if you study all those anathemas of Trent. The RCC obviously was intending them to apply to the Reformers in an attempt to limit or counter the Reformation. For purposes of this thread, I will have to do more research, but there is probably one about infant baptism, that whoever says it is not proper is anathema.

I have no doubt that the RCC during the Reformation, and certainly during the Inquisition, pronounced condemnation to hell (unless they recanted) upon many “heretics” who dared question Rome’s authority or doctrine.
**

 

[Lampo]

The issue of infant Baptism is not discussed explicitly in the Bible, but it is likely that there were babies in the households of Lydia, Stephanus and the jailer at Philippi, where Paul baptized entire families (Acts 16:14-15, Acts 16:29-34 and 1 Corinthians 1:16). In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul alludes to infant baptism when he tells us that Baptism has replaced circumcision. Circumcision took place on the eighth day after birth (Genesis 17:12). We know that early Christians baptized their infants on the eighth day after birth because the third Council of Carthage decreed in the year 252, “that baptism of children need not be deferred until the eighth day after birth as some maintained, but might be administered as soon as possible” (Cyprian, Epistle 64 (59), 2).

The Waldenses and the Cathari (around the 12th century) first raised objections to infant Baptism. Modern day objections can be traced to Thomas Munzer. In 1521, he deduced from his private interpretation of the Bible that Baptism should not be administered to infants but only to adults after conversion and a personal commitment to Christ. Even Martin Luther denounced him and he was expelled from Wittenberg.

The Holy Spirit is the dispenser of grace. At Baptism there is an infusion of grace. If the grace a baby receives at Baptism is nourished (in a Christian atmosphere) it grows; if not, it dies. The saving grace of God enables us to hear and accept the Gospel, not only as adults but also as children hearing it for the first time. That babies can benefit spiritually is clearly indicated in Luke 18:15-16: “Now they were bringing even infants to Him that He might touch them. And when the disciples saw it they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.’” Mark finishes the story in his account, “And He took them in His arms and blessed them, laying His hands upon them” (Mark 10:16).

Our personal commitment to Christ, once we have reached the age of reason, is our conscious decision to keep and maintain what God has already given us. Baptism doesn’t guarantee one’s salvation; rather one is saved as a result of responding positively to the grace received.

We have no record of early Christian writers condemning infant Baptism. However, much is written in support of it. Irenaeus, who lived from 140-202, and was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John wrote, “Christ came to save all who through Him are born again unto God, infants and children, boys and youths, and aged persons” (Against Heresies 2, 22:4). Origen, who lived from 182 to 255 wrote, “Baptism is given even to infants” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3).

 

[jmcrae]

** Most Protestants would fit under such curses if you study all those anathemas of Trent. The RCC obviously was intending them to apply to the Reformers in an attempt to limit or counter the Reformation. For purposes of this thread, I will have to do more research, but there is probably one about infant baptism, that whoever says it is not proper is anathema. **

If you don’t believe that the Catholic Church speaks with God’s authority, then why do you even care?

But if you believe that this could affect your salvation, then shouldn’t you become Catholic?

 

[NotWorthy]

When the RCC says (as at the Council of Trent), “If anyone says [such and such], let him be anathema,” it is not just saying that person is committing grave sin and should repent. Look at the words, "let him be anathema." If “anathema” means accursed or under a divine curse, and if “let him be” means what it says, then for the church to say of anyone, “let him be accursed,” the church is in effect pronouncing a judgment upon him that he is cursed. It is saying he is cursed, or should be, by God. It is not Voodoo because it is by God, not the devil.Tell you what. I’ll look into the Church’s teaching on what “Let him be anathema” mean and get back with you on that. Not that I don’t trust you to tell me what the Church means when it says something…

I have no doubt that the RCC during the Reformation, and certainly during the Inquisition, pronounced condemnation to hell (unless they recanted) upon many “heretics” who dared question Rome’s authority or doctrine.

This would be a good time to show where the Church condemned anyone to hell. At that point, I will be the first one to offer up a sincere apology to you for my words on this matter of “condemnation to hell”.

 

[guanophore]

**How can you say that? **

You misunderstood what I said. Of course our salvation is based upon faith. But the Lord will accept the faith of others on behalf of one who is not able to ask for themselves.
Phil12123;2732640:

I can quote dozens of verses from the lips of Jesus and the pens of the Apostles saying "whoever believes

in Him will not perish but have everlasting life" etc. etc. “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” with no mention at all of baptism in those verses.

This is the problem, Phil. You are taking verses out of context The NT is not meant to be “parsed” this way. The TEaching must be taken as a whole, that means, you don’t exclude other verses that say something different, but develop and understanding based upon ALL the verses. Since there are verses that say things about baptism, it is important to take all of them into consideration to get an understanding.

A person believing in Christ has everlasting life and possesses the Holy Spirit, and yet you say entry into the New Covenant is NOT made by a profession of faith???

I said no such thing! I said that people enter the Covenant through baptism. Baptism is not given without a request in faith.

Look at Cornelius and his group—receiving the Holy Spirit before any water baptism. It was their faith

in the Gospel preached by Peter that gave them entrance into the New Covenant, all before any water baptism.

Ok. Then why did Peter baptize them?

 

[guanophore]

Please give me the examples, chapter and verse.

Jesus acts on the faith of persons for the sake of their loved ones.

Matt 17:15-18
15 “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and he suffers terribly; for often he falls into the fire, and often into the water…18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly.”

Mark 9:17-24
Teacher, I brought my son to you, for he has a dumb spirit; 18 and wherever it seizes him, it dashes him down; and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid; …
22 And it has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him; but if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us." 23 And Jesus said to him, “If you can! All things are possible to him who believes.” 24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, "I believe;… 27 But Jesus took him(the boy) by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose.

Mark 2:3-5
3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. 5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”

On whose faith did Jesus act? People were healed, and sins were forgiven.

Jesus did not specify that "a person being baptized had to become a disciple" because He had His disciples baptize only those who had already become disciples, those He had made disciples (John 4:1,2), not infants who were not yet disciples, nor other nonbelievers who were not yet disciples.

This may be true, we don’t know, because it is not in the record. It also does not explain why Jesus did not do the baptizing, but only His disciples. I agree that nonbelievers should not be baptized.

**There is no Jewish pattern when it comes to baptism. **

There are Jewish forms of baptism, but I was not speaking of those. I invoked the Jewish practice of cirucumcision because this is what Paul compares to baptism.
Phil12123;2732640:

And we see no NT pattern that Jesus lived that is being followed by baptizing infants and then hoping that they make their own profession of faith later. Jesus was not baptized as an infant.

No, he was born a Jew, and had not yet instituted the sacrament of baptism. He was presented as an infant, and was circumcised as a sing of his membership in the covenant.

His circumcision was entirely in accordance with Genesis 17 that He be circumcised at 8 days old. If we want to follow Jesus as an example, we would baptize no infants. And we don’t see Jesus or any of His disciples

baptizing any infants before they could make their own profession of faith.

We “see” it differently. When Catholics read “household” we understand this to include children. If you think this is something Roman, go post this on the Eastern forum. The Orthodox have nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, and they baptize infants too. How do you suppose that happened? They claim to trace this practice back to the Apostles.

The example Jesus left was to let the little children come unto Him, and we do this through baptism. We also do more than “hope” they will make a profession of faith, but bring them up in the way they should go, so that when they get old, they won;'t depart from it.