Hi Susan.Here is how I would respond to this:
I don’t know that there was a certain numerical age set for baptism. In Jewish households in the first century girls became responsible for repentance at the age of 12 and boys at 13. Judaism does not have “Original Sin.” They believe babies are born innocent. I don’t know if ages 12 and 13 were used for baptism in the beginning or not.
I do know that every example of a baptism in the Bible involves a consenting individual who believed and repented. I am not aware of a time when baptism was commanded or described without belief and repentance. Acts 8:12 makes no mention of children, but only adult men and women. Were there no children in this town? Were only childless people believing? Acts 8:12 - But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
There are 5 mentions of household baptisms in the Bible. The only one of these that mentions that all in the household were baptized, also states that the whole household believed.
Acts 16:31 - They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.
Was the entire household old enough to believe and be accountable for repentance? Or did the “all” and “whole” just mean those members of the large extended family household old enough to believe and repent? Either way we do not see a mention of those unable to believe being baptized. (If I said that everyone in my neighborhood voted on election day, would you think that even the infants and toddlers voted? Or would you realize I meant everyone of legal voting age in my neighborhood voted?)
Acts 10:44-47 mentions people in Cornelius’ household who were filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues receiving baptism. This does not mention if infants and toddlers who were not speaking in tongues were baptized as well.
Lydia was baptized with members of her household Acts 16:15 - When she and the members of her household were baptized…
It doesn’t mention if everybody in her household was baptized or if her household included young children.
Acts 18:8 - Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.
1 Corinthians 1:16 - (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
These verses don’t reveal what ages were baptized and whether it was every single body in the house or not.
So, there is evidence in Acts 8 that in Samaria only men and women were being baptized. In Acts there were 2 examples where the “whole household” and “entire household” believed in Jesus - in one of these households “all” were baptized. We don’t know if this means that all were old enough to believe, or if it means that all in the household who were old enough believed.
Does the Bible say to not baptize an infant? No. But if we baptize someone who does not profess belief and repent of their sinful ways, are we really following Biblical teaching? Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, This says to baptize disciples, not to baptize people so later they can become disciples.Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This does not say repent AND/OR be baptized. It does not say become baptized now and repent when you are 7 or 13. If we try to separate repentance of our sinful ways from the actual baptism, we are changing what the Bible teaches us about baptism.
Here is how I would respond to this:
I don’t know that there was a certain numerical age set for baptism. In Jewish households in the first century girls became responsible for repentance at the age of 12 and boys at 13. Judaism does not have “Original Sin.” They believe babies are born innocent. I don’t know if ages 12 and 13 were used for baptism in the beginning or not.
I do know that every example of a baptism in the Bible involves a consenting individual who believed and repented. . . . Were only childless people believing? Acts 8:12 - But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
There are 5 mentions of household baptisms in the Bible. The only one of these that mentions that all in the household were baptized, also states that the whole household believed.
Acts 16:31 - They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” . . .
Acts 10:44-47 mentions people in Cornelius’ household who were filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues receiving baptism. This does not mention if infants and toddlers who were not speaking in tongues were baptized as well.
Lydia was baptized with members of her household Acts 16:15 - When she and the members of her household were baptized…
It doesn’t mention if everybody in her household was baptized or if her household included young children.
Acts 18:8 - Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.
1 Corinthians 1:16 - (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
These verses don’t reveal what ages were baptized and whether it was every single body in the house or not.
So, there is evidence in Acts 8 that in Samaria only men and women were being baptized. . .
Does the Bible say to not baptize an infant? No. . . If we try to separate repentance of our sinful ways from the actual baptism, we are changing what the Bible teaches us about baptism.
Responding to the OP: Jesus was not born with original sin.
Understanding infant baptism I would think one must first understand original sin itself. We bear the guilt of original sin, as an adult or as an infant because we are progeny of Adam. The original justice accompanying Adam’s creation was a moral quality or habit that perfectly joined the will to an enlightened understanding of the will of God. Inexplicably joined to the cardinal virtues, justice gives the rights to honorable prudence, temperance, and fortitude in moral acts. Prior to his original act of rebellion it could be said Adam ‘abided’ in God, much like we are invited to abide in Christ partaking in the Eucharist. [Cf. John 6:57]. The punishment of original sin is God’s withholding original justice from Adam and his progeny that which once belonged to the patriarch of all men. Something we would have rightly inherited had it not been for one man’s sin. Prior to the fall, Adam stood before God as a just man. The original man was created with a soul that was perfectly joined to the intellect and perfectly united with the will of God, overflowing the knowledge of truth; the intellect functioned in the light of God’s will disciplining the lower appetites through reason alone. However, because of his unjust act we bear the just punishment for the sin of one man.
St. Anslem says that “justice is uprightness (rectitudo)-of-will kept for its own sake.” Continuing in this way St. Anslem says, “justice is not rightness of knowledge or rightness of action but is rightness of will.” [St. Anselm, On Truth, 12]. Therefore, justification then is a movement or process of perfecting God’s Grace of Justice wherein, says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, justification is “the sanctification of the whole being” [CCC 1995] is received in Baptism as an effect of grace, re-introducing man to the mercy of God, weakening the original privation of justice whereby a new man is ‘born again’ into the “rectitude of divine love”. [CCC 1991].
Since justice is not rightness of knowledge or actions then age or majority has nothing to do with baptism. The child needn’t walk the aisles, as some say, to reciting, “Jesus is Lord”. Logically our children should be reintroduced to the “rectitude of divine love” as soon as humanly possible.
JoeT
While I am apprehensive about certain vaccines, my children did receive some vaccinations. We made the decision for them because they were not able to decide for themselves. These injections provided benefit because it caused them to be protected from illnesses.Hi Susan.
Should we vaccinate our kids or wait until they hit a certain age and can prove to us that they understand it?
I use such a analogy because that’s sort of what sacraments are - spiritual vaccines.
Blessings to you.
You presume much.Vaccines provide benefits to people’s bodies whether they consent to receiving them or not. 1. Can baptism provide spiritual benefits to an infant who is unaware of what is occurring? 2. Can baptism provide spiritual benefits to an incoherent adult who is unaware of what is occurring? 3. Can baptism provide spiritual benefits if we ran through the streets with buckets baptizing people without any consent?
We all would agree that the answer to the last 2 questions is: No…
Hi, Susan!Does the Catholic Church practice baptism of the dead? I am only familiar with the Mormons doing this.
Hi, Susan!While I am apprehensive about certain vaccines, my children did receive some vaccinations. We made the decision for them because they were not able to decide for themselves. These injections provided benefit because it caused them to be protected from illnesses.
Someday I may need to make a medical decision for an ill adult family member. If I had an elderly parent who was incoherent and needed a medication, procedure or even a vaccine, I may be called upon to make that decision. This medical decision would hopefully benefit the person and cause an improvement in health.
Vaccines provide benefits to people’s bodies whether they consent to receiving them or not. 1. Can baptism provide spiritual benefits to an infant who is unaware of what is occurring? 2. Can baptism provide spiritual benefits to an incoherent adult who is unaware of what is occurring? 3. Can baptism provide spiritual benefits if we ran through the streets with buckets baptizing people without any consent?
We all would agree that the answer to the last 2 questions is: No. How do we know that the first example of baptism without personal faith provides any more spiritual benefit than the other two examples? If first century Jewish Christians had no concept of babies being born guilty of “Original Sin” and believed their children to be born innocent, would they have thought they needed to repent of sins on behalf of an infant? What reason would they have used for baptizing their infants if they had separated repentance of sinfulness from baptism?
(St. James 5:14-16)14 If one of you is ill, he should send for the elders of the church, and they must anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord and pray over him. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick man and the Lord will raise him up again; and if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. 16 So confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, and this will cure you; the heartfelt prayer of a good man works very powerfully.
So you would answer that baptism of an adult who does not believe in God would be effective in washing away the person’s sins and making the person a child of God? What changes would occur in the life of a non-believing adult who was baptized without agreement and consent?You presume much.
How do you baptize someone who doesn’t consent?So you would answer that baptism of an adult who does not believe in God would be effective in washing away the person’s sins and making the person a child of God? What changes would occur in the life of a non-believing adult who was baptized without agreement and consent?
Evolution disproves the adam and eve story, so there was no fall, no need for redemption, etc in reality. As to the literary claim of original sin and the savior, Jesus is assumed to be a deity in the flesh, so he could not sin against himself by definition because he could not hold himself accountable to himself, and the continued logical absurdity that continues on.Didn’t know where to put this thread.
Was Jesus born with original sin?
If not, then why was he baptized by John the Baptist then if he wasn’t born with original sin as infants are when they are several days old and they are baptized by water?
I’m trying to work on my apologetics and my wife played the evangelical card saying she wants me to be prepared to answer those objections. Mind you I did tense up because I could never convince her and If I can’t convince her, then I can’t convince anyone else.
P.S: I used the following verses and she still wasn’t convinced.
Matthew 19:14,Luke 18:16, Acts 2:38-39, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16
I did managed to use St. Paul’s description of circumsion of the Jews and how water baptism replaced this rite(if thats what you can call it) to welcome the child into the new covenant.
Hi, Russell!Evolution disproves the adam and eve story, so there was no fall, no need for redemption, etc in reality. As to the literary claim of original sin and the savior, Jesus is assumed to be a deity in the flesh, so he could not sin against himself by definition because he could not hold himself accountable to himself, and the continued logical absurdity that continues on.
)In the mid-19th century, Charles Darwin formulated the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, published in his book On the Origin of Species (1859). Evolution by natural selection is a process demonstrated by the observation (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Can you define the meaning of scientific theory? I don’t believe you understand the use of the term.Hi, Russell!
…did you know that “evolution” is not a fact but a theory:
…can you tell when it was that man traveled back in time to observe the emergence of life and the first development of this theory of evolution?
Maran atha!
Angel
Hi Susan.While I am apprehensive about certain vaccines, my children did receive some vaccinations. We made the decision for them because they were not able to decide for themselves. These injections provided benefit because it caused them to be protected from illnesses.
Someday I may need to make a medical decision for an ill adult family member. If I had an elderly parent who was incoherent and needed a medication, procedure or even a vaccine, I may be called upon to make that decision. This medical decision would hopefully benefit the person and cause an improvement in health.
Vaccines provide benefits to people’s bodies whether they consent to receiving them or not. 1. Can baptism provide spiritual benefits to an infant who is unaware of what is occurring? 2. Can baptism provide spiritual benefits to an incoherent adult who is unaware of what is occurring? 3. Can baptism provide spiritual benefits if we ran through the streets with buckets baptizing people without any consent?
We all would agree that the answer to the last 2 questions is: No. How do we know that the first example of baptism without personal faith provides any more spiritual benefit than the other two examples? If first century Jewish Christians had no concept of babies being born guilty of “Original Sin” and believed their children to be born innocent, would they have thought they needed to repent of sins on behalf of an infant? What reason would they have used for baptizing their infants if they had separated repentance of sinfulness from baptism?
Hi, Russell!Can you define the meaning of scientific theory? I don’t believe you understand the use of the term.
)The initial presence of dolphins on the Earth dates back millions of years. It is hard to believe, but scientists think that the earliest ancestors of dolphins were not marine creatures. They were terrestrial animals that today seem to have little in common with dolphins. (dolphins-world.com/dolphin-evolution/
I was responding to your statement that “We all would agree that the answer to the last 2 questions is: No…”, which is different than the statement you just made. I don’t agree that the answer to those specific questions is no.So you would answer that baptism of an adult who does not believe in God would be effective in washing away the person’s sins and making the person a child of God? What changes would occur in the life of a non-believing adult who was baptized without agreement and consent?
I don’t think you are understanding evolution either now.Hi, Russell!
…yeah, you’ve got me there! …though I’m pretty sure I can look it up in the net… there’s a whole bunch of stuff there!
…still, did you know that scientific theory is still based on some facts and many educated guesses?
…it is claimed that homo sapiens evolved because of its greater brain functions (uses %10 of its brain capacity)… yet, it is also claimed that a dolphin uses %20 of its brain capacity… isn’t it funny that a creature that uses twice the capacity of its brain and outstrips homo erectus/sapiens evolution by millions of years is not the dominant species on the planet?:
Russell, did you catch the “guesses” being made?
Maran atha!
Angel
Hi, Russell!I don’t think you are understanding evolution either now.
But as to the “theory” part of the conversation, this is how I understand it. Observations were made about reality. These observations are facts. Facts are just raw data. IE: the observation of something dropping. Now after repeated testing of what recreates that observed fact, that process that most accurately repeats the process observed becomes the tentative explanation for what could be causing that observation. Currently the best process science has for the observed fact of evolution is called the Theory of Evolution.
Rinse and repeat for say gravity. We observed things falling, the current process that we have that most accurately repeats that process of things falling is called the Theory of Gravity.
Let’s compare to what Wiki says about the topic now:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.
It is important to note that the definition of a “scientific theory” (often ambiguously contracted to “theory” for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word “theory”. In everyday non-scientific speech, “theory” can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of the word “theory” in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term “prediction” in science versus “prediction” in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.
So based on how I understand the word theory and how you’ve presented your understanding of the word theory, I don’t believe you are willing to represent accurate fairness in this conversation and thus, it’s not really worth my time to keep this conversation going.