Origin of Infant Baptism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wllmjoseph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wllmjoseph

Guest
Code: 
 I perform Catholic Ministry at a correction facility in North Carolina.  One of the inmates who I minister to was recently questioned on the practice of Infant Baptism in the Catholic Church.  It is my understanding that Baptists, Pentecostals and many of the Non Denominational Christians do not practice infant baptism but  believe that Baptism should only occur at the age of reason.  
 I don't believe there is anything in Scripture that indicated that Baptism should only be for adults.  I would greatly appreciate it if any could provide information on the approximate time or period that Infant Baptism was instituted in the early Church and if there is any basis for Infant Baptism in the New Testament.  Thank you.
 
Last edited:
wllmjoseph said:
I perform Catholic Ministry at Alexander Correctional Facility. One of the inmates who I minister to was recently questioned on the practice of Infant Baptism in the Catholic Church. It is my understanding that Baptists, Pentecostals and many of the Non Denominational Christians do not practice infant baptism but believe that Baptism should only occur at the age of reason. I don’t believe there is anything in Scripture that indicated that Baptism should only be for adults. I would greatly appreciate it if any could provide information on the approximate time or period that Infant Baptism was instituted in the early Church and if there is any basis for Infant Baptism in the New Testament. Thank you.
Click to expand...
^^ this is OP’s post

 
One of the inmates to whom I minister at a North Carolina correctional facility was recently challenged on the practice of Infant Baptism. The Baptists, Pentecostals and Non Denominational Christians do not practice Infant Baptism but instead the individual is Baptized when there are of the age of reason. There is nothing in Scripture that prohibits infant Baptism. I would greatly appreciate information on when Infant Baptism was instituted in the early Church as well as the doctrine on Infant Baptism. I am re submitting this topic for I was told that my first post was not readable. Thank you.

W.M.
 
Last edited:
Infant Baptism was began in the Year 325 AD and is not valid according to Scripture which says one must first repent (Acts 2:38 as stated by the Apostle Peter ) before Baptism is administered and then by emersion only by definition Baptize Greek Baptiso to Emerce. Infants obviously cannot repent though born in Sin or to say the Adam Nature that we all inherit at birth. When one is Buried they are covered with Dirt not sprinkled with it otherwise the Scripture that says we are buried with Him is of none effect and invalid. The Water is a type of the Grave that’s why first Believers were Baptiso/Emerced completely. Peter also says Baptised for the Remission or Washing away of Sin, this is where The Lords Blood is applied, First forgiveness ( Repentance) then Remission be Baptiso/ Emerced in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sin Acts 2:38 also see Acts 4:12, Acts 10 and Acts 19. Only examples of Actual first Church Baptism is found in the first 19 Chapters of Acts.

Mathew 28:19 What to do.

Acts 2:38 How to do.

There is no evidence in Scripture that infants were ever Baptized.
 
Last edited:
@wllmjoseph

Acts 16:15 When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.” And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:33 At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay.

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers and were baptized.
 
Last edited:
Irenaeus wrote around the year 180 “He came to save all persons by means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants, children, boys, youth, and old men”. Born again is meant through water baptism.
Then Hippolytus and Cyprian wrote several decades later even more explicitly on the need to baptize infants.
The book of Acts speaks several times of whole households being baptized, for example Acts 16:15. This baptism could have included infants.
Baptism is a sort of circumcision, Col. 2:11:12. Of course babies were physically circumcised.
Another passage that has been used to try to prove infant baptism is Acts 2:38-39, notice the mention of ‘your children’ in verse 39.
A verse that has been used to disprove infant baptism is Acts 8:12, which says “they were baptized, both men and women”. But notice that the verse begins with “But when they believed Philip”. So that seems to be why here children were not baptized, because they were too small to believe Philip. So the children could have been baptized later, maybe the next day.
 
Last edited:
Factually incorrect. Infant baptism was practiced long before 325 (what an interesting date to choose). More on that later.
I suspect that your interpretation is greatly infulenced by a hyper individualistic culture. Of course, when an adult is baptized he or she should repent and be becoming Christian, and if a child cannot speak, let the adults speak for him. When both parents are Christian, it is assumed the child will be too. They baptized whole households. Baptism is the new circumcision; an adult convert obviously needed to believe in Judaism, but a child of Jews was expected to be circumcised as an infant.

Infant baptism in the early Church is attested to here:
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” -Ireneas, Against Heresies 2:22:4, written around 189. Notice who is to be reborn here.
“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.” -Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16, around 215
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” -Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 8:3, around 248

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

"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them.

Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’"
 
Last edited:
amerscot51 said:
Infant Baptism was began in the Year 325 AD and is not valid according to Scripture which says one must first repent (Acts 2:38 as stated by the Apostle Peter ) before Baptism is administered and then by emersion only by definition Baptize Greek Baptiso to Emerce. Infants obviously cannot repent though born in Sin or to say the Adam Nature that we all inherit at birth. When one is Buried they are covered with Dirt not sprinkled with it otherwise the Scripture that says we are buried with Him is of none effect and invalid. The Water is a type of the Grave that’s why first Believers were Baptiso/Emerced completely. Peter also says Baptised for the Remission or Washing away of Sin, this is where The Lords Blood is applied, First forgiveness ( Repentance) then Remission be Baptiso/ Emerced in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sin Acts 2:38 also see Acts 4:12, Acts 10 and Acts 19. Only examples of Actual first Church Baptism is found in the first 19 Chapters of Acts.

Mathew 28:19 What to do.

Acts 2:38 How to do.

There is no evidence in Scripture that infants were ever Baptized.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing in Scripture which says that one must wait until “the age of reason” to be baptized. If Jewish boys (which includes Jesus) were circumcised, and thus brought into the Covenant, long before they could even speak, how could baptism- the New Circumcision (one made without hands) be restricted only to those who can speak for themselves? This isn’t a precedent which God has established- quite the contrary, actually.
 
Last edited:
amerscot51 said:
Infant Baptism was began in the Year 325 AD and is not valid according to Scripture which says one must first repent (Acts 2:38 as stated by the Apostle Peter ) before Baptism is administered and then by emersion only by definition Baptize Greek Baptiso to Emerce.
Click to expand...
Your wrong the scriptures says other wise Acts 2:38-39 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” Acts 16:15 When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.” And she prevailed upon us. her whole family
amerscot51 said:
before Baptism is administered and then by emersion only by definition Baptize Greek Baptiso to Emerce. Infants obviously cannot repent though born in Sin or to say the Adam Nature that we all inherit at birth. When one is Buried they are covered with Dirt not sprinkled with it otherwise the Scripture that says we are buried with Him is of none effect and invalid.
Click to expand...
where in the scripture it say only through immersion and not other wise ,do you think water will be available every where those day to immerse babies for baptism.parents do have faith right ,Acts 16:31 They answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
amerscot51 said:
When one is Buried they are covered with Dirt not sprinkled with it otherwise the Scripture that says we are buried with Him is of none effect and invalid. The Water is a type of the Grave that’s why first Believers were Baptiso/Emerced completely. Peter also says Baptised for the Remission or Washing away of Sin, this is where The Lords Blood is applied, First forgiveness ( Repentance) then Remission be Baptiso/ Emerced in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sin Acts 2:38 also see Acts 4:12, Acts 10 and Acts 19. Only examples of Actual first Church Baptism is found in the first 19 Chapters of Acts.
Click to expand...
Dirt no, Bible says differently 1 Peter 3:21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God fora good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

who said every thing is written in the bible no where it is said by immersion only baptize can be done John 21:25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
 
Continuation

2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. ;Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.;32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
  • orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33
  • in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34
. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 ;In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.36
 
Last edited:
Excellent Kei.

I wish more protestants AND Catholics understand that baptism is the new circumcision. But seeing how most protestants think it is just a symbol, I can see why you must be at the age of reason…however it is so much more than a symbol!
 
I always think that there are certain topics of debate between Protestants and Catholics that it is impossible for Protestants to make a coherent case. Infant baptism is one of them.
 
The inmate that inquired about the origin of Infant Baptism was recently challenged by an Evangelical inmate that there is no basis in Scripture for Infant Baptism and the the Scripture does imply that Baptism is for adults. In the Bible Belt South there are Evangelical Christians who believe that Infant Baptism is a creation of the Catholic Church as has not basis. I wanted to provide him with the facts so that he is able to defend his faith.
 
As has been demonstrated on this thread, Scripture implies support for infant baptism to a much, much greater degree than it implies baptism for adults only. It’s not even a close comparison. At the end of the day Protestants are left with making up history and ignoring scripture, just so they can defend their own tradition.
 
wllmjoseph said:
The inmate that inquired about the origin of Infant Baptism was recently challenged by an Evangelical inmate that there is no basis in Scripture for Infant Baptism and the the Scripture does imply that Baptism is for adults. In the Bible Belt South there are Evangelical Christians who believe that Infant Baptism is a creation of the Catholic Church as has not basis. I wanted to provide him with the facts so that he is able to defend his faith.
Click to expand...
A short introduction to Covenant theology might do the trick to help him. I’m going to a Bible study with some others from school, and the very first thing we touched on were five covenants God made in the Old Testament. The first was a marital covenant between Adam and Eve. The next was a larger Familial Covenant with Noah and his wife, their children and their wives. The third was with Abraham and his tribe (so a tribal covenant). Then He made a nation covenant with Moses, and His covenant with David made the nation royal.

The Covenants are getting “bigger and better” , as we described it. The fourth covenant explicitly included infants, and as we have never seen God “cutting out” anyone from His Covenant, we must assume that infants also have a place in it. As Scripture refers to baptism as a circumcision made without hands- and circumcision was the means for Jewish boys to enter the Covenant- we have no choice but to accept the baptism of infants.
 
How odd, the relationship can be seen in Colossians.
“In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

Apparently this was taken so seriously that some early Christians, at least enough to where it seemed important to address, thought you should wait for the 8th day to baptize an infant, like you would with circumcision.
 
Last edited:
Origen, writing about the year 248, said, “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.” (Commentary on Romans 5:9)

That and other early Christian writings are mentioned in Evidence for Infant Baptism in the Church Fathers.

Tertullian, writing about the year 200, attested to the practice but expressed his preference that the baptism of innocent little children be delayed. (On Baptism, Chapter 18)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top