Is credobaptism in the Bible?

[Botan91]

So I’ve been having a discussion with a Protestant friend of mine who says that Baptism is an act of obedience but does not save you. I take the Catholic position on this, saying that Baptism saves us from our sins. My problem is that in the last e-mail she sent me, it has several Biblical verses that have “repentance” or “hearing the Word” first before they are baptized. Here are her examples: Cornelius’ house–Acts 10, in the jailer’s house–Acts 16, Lydia–Acts and I Corinthians, Stephanus–I Corinthians 1, and John 4:53. In the cases where the whole household is baptized she says that ‘Household is then defined as “those capable of hearig, understanding, believing.”’ How do Catholics interpret these particular verses?

Another verse that she points to is Acts 2:38. She says that verse should be read to mean not small children, but future generations. Is she correct?

 

[Canto]

Mk 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

There you have it. To be saved we have to believe AND be baptised. It doesn’t say when we have to believe or when we have to be baptised.

John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Water and Spirit i.e. Baptism. Some Protestants say it’s not about baptism but the early fathers and councils were clear it was about baptism.

Baptism replaces circumcision says St Peter. Jesus, John the Baptist were circumcised as infants. There is no mention of a change when baptism took over, so we can assume infants were baptised.

Cornelius’ house–Acts 10:36 Those specifically mentioned were baptised but this does not exclude children.

Lydia–Acts 16:15 “and when she was baptised, and her household” No mention of there being or not being infants.

in the jailer’s house—Acts 16:30 And bringing them out, he said: Masters, what must I do, that I may be saved? 31 But they said: believe in the Lord Jesus: and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. 33 And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes: and himself was baptised, and all his house immediately.

He believed AND was baptised. No mention of there being or not being infants.

Stephanus–I Corinthians 1:16 “And I baptised also the household of Stephanus.”

None of the above verses define a household as those who are capable of believing. John 4:53 does not discount infant baptism it doesn’t even mention baptism. I just mentions that he and everyone in his house believed, maybe there were not infants in this particualr house.

John 4:53 “The father therefore knew that it was at the same hour that Jesus said to him: Thy son liveth. And himself believed, and his whole house.”

Acts 2:38, they asked what shall we do. Peter said “be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Would not all of them, want their Children baptised too. For as Peter notes “the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.” Next we told that they were baptised, so while future generations would be baptised, they too (and their children) were baptised. “And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread [Eucharist] and in prayers.”

 

[Canto]

Baptism…does not save you.

1 Peter 3:21 “baptism…saves you”

 

[workingman]

Titus 3:5-7; 5 Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;

6 Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: 7 That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting.

Clearly Baptism hear is shown as saving as regeneration can not be symbolic.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Then why did Jesus order baptism?

18* And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19* Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20* teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Matthew 28:18-20

15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Mark 16:15-16

 

[Third_Day]

=Botan91;6289961]So I’ve been having a discussion with a Protestant friend of mine who says that Baptism is an act of obedience but does not save you

.He says that because he believes he is save by faith alone.Therefore baptism is not necessary. This is the doctrine that Protestants must hold on to or Protestantism crumbles.
Of course their belief contradicts James 2:24 “we are justified by works and not by faith alone”.

I take the Catholic position on this, saying that Baptism saves us from our sins

.Here is what Baptism does. Acts 2:38 " Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit""

It doesn’t get any better than that.

Another verse that she points to is Acts 2:38. She says that verse should be read to mean not small children, but future generations. Is she correct?

“those that are far off” refers to the Jews who had been scattered throughout the world. Baptism was to replace circumcision and it was for all of the Jews.
Have him look at Acts 21:21 " …you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to** circumcise **their children…( teknon)."

Jewish children where circumcised at eight days old. Acts was written in Greek

The Greek word in Acts 21:21 for children is “teknon”. That same Greek word for children is used in Acts 39.
" For the promise is to you and to your “teknon”

 

[peary1]

So I’ve been having a discussion with a Protestant friend of mine who says that Baptism is an act of obedience but does not save you. I take the Catholic position on this, saying that Baptism saves us from our sins. My problem is that in the last e-mail she sent me, it has several Biblical verses that have “repentance” or “hearing the Word” first before they are baptized. Here are her examples: Cornelius’ house–Acts 10, in the jailer’s house–Acts 16, Lydia–Acts and I Corinthians, Stephanus–I Corinthians 1, and John 4:53. In the cases where the whole household is baptized she says that ‘Household is then defined as “those capable of hearig, understanding, believing.”’ How do Catholics interpret these particular verses?

Another verse that she points to is Acts 2:38. She says that verse should be read to mean not small children, but future generations. Is she correct?

The Bible is rather clear on this: “Baptism saves you.” 1 Peter 3:21

Your Protestant friend probably does not believe that Baptism takes the stain of Original Sin from our souls. Since the Church has always taught this, I fail to see where she can argue the matter with you with any sense of logic.

 

[the_Assyrian_1]

dear OPQ…

You should be careful here, Protestants have a tendancy to (in my experince) try and discredit any infant baptism you may have. It was such a big issue in my life that I went for a second baptism… I can tell you that the LORD is accepting of both and I felt the need to confess sin after both (remembering as a Child and once again as an adult)… … so there is no distinction - tell her, from one whos been to both…!

However she should know that there is no entry into heaven without it, for us christians, we need to fulfill all righteousness as Christ did when He was on the Earth… besides there are many benefits of it which I wont go into…

She might try argue the case of the theif on the cross but that a long shot in my book, but I wont get into all that now… lol !!!

Thanks and good luck!

 

[Cachonga]

If baptism wasn’t necessary or important, Jesus wouldn’t have commanded that it be done. However, I have tried many times to remember what I believed when I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. The best I can come up with is something like “I believe the guy in the dress is really annoying.”. After God brought me out of the RC church, I came to realize the importance of a proper baptism, and was baptized properly (first I believed, then I was baptized). I don’t think it matters if one is “dunked” or “sprinkled”. While the Scriptures are not clear on infant baptism, I would suggest that since we see a consistent occurrance of “first they believed, then they were baptized”, that would preclude infants.

I would like to ask an honest question (I really don’t know the answer, but would like to) - where in Scripture is it mentioned that baptism has replaced circumcision? If it’s not in Scripture, when is this idea first documented, and by who? Finally, since circumcision was for the male children, why are females baptized (if baptism has replaced circumcision)?

 

[Canto]

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children…

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]). catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

How would a woman be circumcised?
Easy for them to be baptised

scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III

Baptism replaces circumcision
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

Let the children come to me
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.
Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.
Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Baptism without faith
Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.”

Households included infants
Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.
Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.
Luke 1:59 - this proves that “teknon” includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.
There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults. Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.
2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Forgiveness based on another’s faith
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith.
Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. This is another example of healing based on another’s faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.
Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith.
1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.
Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.

 

[Canto]

scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III

THE FATHERS
“And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years…” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

“Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?” Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord.” Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

 

[inkaneer]

So I’ve been having a discussion with a Protestant friend of mine who says that Baptism is an act of obedience but does not save you. I take the Catholic position on this, saying that Baptism saves us from our sins. My problem is that in the last e-mail she sent me, it has several Biblical verses that have “repentance” or “hearing the Word” first before they are baptized. Here are her examples: Cornelius’ house–Acts 10, in the jailer’s house–Acts 16, Lydia–Acts and I Corinthians, Stephanus–I Corinthians 1, and John 4:53. In the cases where the whole household is baptized she says that ‘Household is then defined as “those capable of hearig, understanding, believing.”’ How do Catholics interpret these particular verses?

Another verse that she points to is Acts 2:38. She says that verse should be read to mean not small children, but future generations. Is she correct?

Ask your protestant friend if she believes in legalism. For that is exactly what she is saying. What she is saying is that baptism is not necessary but we do it because we are told to do it. This reminds me of another post here where a poster said his protestant friend said baptism was a “public declaration of faith”, not a sacrament and did not remit sin and thus did not save. First, I question whether baptism under these circumstances is really valid. Second, I have to ask then why is baptism done in these denominations? There is no requirement for a “public declaration of faith” in scripture. Third, if Baptism did not save then why were those people who were baptized into John’s Baptism baptized in the authority of Jesus [Acts 19:1-7]? Why did that matter? As for the repentence part in her E-mail please remind her that repentence is necessary for the forgiveness of sin. As for whole household part tell her that scripture places no restriction on who in the household is baptize so when scripture says “entire households”, or just “family of…” were baptized that means everyone men, women, children, infants and in the case of households, servants and slaves.

 

[Cachonga]

Canto:

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children…

Thanks for the info. You bring up some interesting points, but you do not answer the question. In regard to circumcision replacing baptism, you neglect Rom 2:29 (“He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God.” RSV emphasis mine). Furthermore, as you point out, Jesus said (in Mark 16:16) “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Notice that it is belief first, then baptism. If one is baptized first, but never believes, what good is the baptism? Also (as you mentioned), Paul says, “For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.” (1 Cor 7:14 RSV). This tells me that my children are sanctified for my sake (since I’m a believer). This indicates to me that they have not been baptized, otherwise, they would be sanctified by that, and not because of my belief.

I don’t think you have used the ECF’s in an appropriate way. Can an infant be a disciple (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6)? BTW, Justin Martyr also said, “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, …” (First Apology, Chapter LXI. See here). What can infants be persuaded of? What do infants believe? The Aristides quote only occurs in the Syriac translation, not the Greek. Also, the word “[baptism]” is not found in the translation (see here). How old was Polycarp when he said “'Eighty and six years have I served Him…”? What kind of service can an infant offer?

You did answer my second question (“when is this idea first documented, and by who?”). Irenaeus mentions it in Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180). However, Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, Chapter LXI (A.D. 110-165) was before this, and he seems to indicate that infants were not baptized.

You have not shown from Scripture that baptism has replaced circumcision, nor adequately explained how circumcision was for males, but baptism is for all. I will withdraw the last question, since I have discovered an answer (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:28 RSV emphasis mine; and we are circumcised in our heart).

 

[peary]

If baptism wasn’t necessary or important, Jesus wouldn’t have commanded that it be done. However, I have tried many times to remember what I believed when I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. The best I can come up with is something like “I believe the guy in the dress is really annoying.”. After God brought me out of the RC church, I came to realize the importance of a proper baptism, and was baptized properly (first I believed, then I was baptized). I don’t think it matters if one is “dunked” or “sprinkled”. While the Scriptures are not clear on infant baptism, I would suggest that since we see a consistent occurrance of “first they believed, then they were baptized”, that would preclude infants.

I would like to ask an honest question (I really don’t know the answer, but would like to) - where in Scripture is it mentioned that baptism has replaced circumcision? If it’s not in Scripture, when is this idea first documented, and by who? Finally, since circumcision was for the male children, why are females baptized (if baptism has replaced circumcision)?

You have GOT to be kidding!! GOD brought you out of His own Church? WOW…are you a poor deluded soul! Believe me, prayers are coming your way.

 

[inkaneer]

Thanks for the info. You bring up some interesting points, but you do not answer the question. In regard to circumcision replacing baptism, you neglect Rom 2:29 (“He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God.” RSV emphasis mine). Furthermore, as you point out, Jesus said (in Mark 16:16) “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Notice that it is belief first, then baptism. If one is baptized first, but never believes, what good is the baptism? Also (as you mentioned), Paul says, “For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.” (1 Cor 7:14 RSV). This tells me that my children are sanctified for my sake (since I’m a believer). This indicates to me that they have not been baptized, otherwise, they would be sanctified by that, and not because of my belief."

First of all circumcision did not replace baptism. Its the other way, baptism replaced circumcision. Those eight day old Jewish boys didn’t have to believe in the Mosaic covenant to be circumcized nor could they. The faith of their parents was sufficient and so it is with baptism. Just as circumcision was the initial rite of being a Jew baptism is the initial rite of being a christian. If you are not baptized in water by the authority of Jesus [trinitarian baptism] then you are no christian. As for Paul’s words in 1 Cor 7:14 do not confused being “consecrated” with being personally sanctified. Paul is speaking of the marital relationship between a believer and a non believer as being valid so long as the nonbeliever does not leave. Notice what Paul says in verses 15 and 16, *“15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. 16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?” *. Paul leaves open the possibility that because of the believer the unbeliever may come to belief. In other words, there are no unbelievers in heaven.

As for belief being necessary for baptism I don’t know anyone who says it isn’t- for adults. Belief was also necessary for circumcision UNLESS one was an eight day old male infant. The early church baptized infants also. In fact if you check your early church history you will find that the only controversy concerning infant baptism was if it should be done on the eighth day [as with circumcision] or before. Note the conversation between Cyprian of Carthage and Fidus in 253 AD. Cyprian tells Fidus:

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

I don’t think you have used the ECF’s in an appropriate way. Can an infant be a disciple (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6)? BTW, Justin Martyr also said, “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, …” (First Apology, Chapter LXI. See here). What can infants be persuaded of? What do infants believe? The Aristides quote only occurs in the Syriac translation, not the Greek. Also, the word “[baptism]” is not found in the translation (see here).

I think it is you who have missed used the ECF’s. For instance Justin Martyr did not write his Apologies as a catechetical summary of beliefs as you try to make it. Instead He wrote it to the Emperor to present, in his words, *"…this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them." * See Chapter 1 – ADDRESS. So the fact he does not address infant baptism does not mean he, nor the christian church, does not believe in it.

How old was Polycarp when he said “'Eighty and six years have I served Him…”? What kind of service can an infant offer?"

Who says it is about service? You are the only one I know of. Polycarp uttered those words when he was threatened with martyrdom. He was urged to curse Christ or die. Polycarps answer was, “Fourscore and six years have I served Him, and he has done me no harm. How then can I curse my King that saved me.” There was no connection with Baptism. Again you misuse the ECF’s.

Continued…

 

[inkaneer]

Continuing…

You did answer my second question (“when is this idea first documented, and by who?”). Irenaeus mentions it in Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180). However, Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, Chapter LXI (A.D. 110-165) was before this, and he seems to indicate that infants were not baptized.

You have not shown from Scripture that baptism has replaced circumcision, nor adequately explained how circumcision was for males, but baptism is for all. I will withdraw the last question, since I have discovered an answer (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:28 RSV emphasis mine; and we are circumcised in our heart).

There is Augustine who claimed that infant baptism was taught by the apostles.

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Before Augustine there was Origen who also claimed an Apostolic origin to infant baptism:

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

Now if infant baptism was thought to be wrong by the early church where is the opposition? Where are the guardians of the faith to combat this heretical teaching if it was indeed heretical as you claim? Where? You show us. But I will tell you this, there is none. Zero, Zip, Nada. So did the impossible occur? Did the church teach error and thereby the forces of hell prevail over the church? Some thing which Jesus said would never happen? Or rather is the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation by saying baptism requires faith? Is the Fundamentalist cart leading the horse? The reality is that for christian baptism as well as for Jewish circumcision faith was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

 

[Canto]

Thanks for the info. You bring up some interesting points, but you do not answer the question. In regard to circumcision replacing baptism, you neglect Rom 2:29 (“He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God.” RSV emphasis mine).

He is a Jew… - but we are Christians and St Basil commenting on Colossians 2:11-12 we see that the circumcision of Christ is Baptism

The circumcision you have undergone is not an operation performed by human hands, but the complete stripping away of your unregenerate nature. This is the circumcision that Christ gave us, and it is accomplished by our burial with him in baptism. Baptism cleanses the soul from the pollution of worldly thoughts and inclinations: You will wash me, says the psalmist, and I shall be whiter than snow. We receive this saving baptism only once because there was only one death and one resurrection for the salvation of the world, and baptism is its symbol. (St Basil, On the Holy Spirit).

Furthermore, as you point out, Jesus said (in Mark 16:16) “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Notice that it is belief first, then baptism. If one is baptized first, but never believes, what good is the baptism?

“He who does not believe will be condemned.” adds Jesus
Nothing about baptism though
So you can be baptised without believing
“And when she was baptised and her houshold…” Acts 16:15
No mention of Lydia’s houshold believing first
There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults

Also (as you mentioned), Paul says, “For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.” (1 Cor 7:14 RSV). This tells me that my children are sanctified for my sake (since I’m a believer). This indicates to me that they have not been baptized, otherwise, they would be sanctified by that, and not because of my belief.

A husband can be consecrated through the belief of his wife
A servant can be healed by the belief of a Roman centurion Matt. 8:8
A paralysed man can be healed by the belief of his friends Matt. 9:2
A daughter is brought to life via via the belief of her father Matt. 6:18+
etc, etc,
So why can’t an infant be baptised via the belief of the parents?

You did answer my second question (“when is this idea first documented, and by who?”). Irenaeus mentions it in Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180). However, Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, Chapter LXI (A.D. 110-165) was before this, and he seems to indicate that infants were not baptized.

Justin Martyr says they have been Christ’s disiple from childhood and remain pure - via being baptised as children.

Irenaeus notes that infants are born again to God - ie born again of water and Spirit - baptised

“And they shall baptise the **little children **first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. **But if they cannot, let their parents answer **or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eigth day. So we see infant baptism as a practice.

St Augustine says it is Apostolic. St Paul tells us to hold onto not just written but also oral tradtion (2 Thes 2:15).