M
montanaman
Guest
Ah! Much better.
- Status
T
Tom
Guest
Technically, although Polycarp died in the second century, he is referring to serving Jesus since his birth, which was in the first century. Scripture also infer infant Baptism.
Since Scriptures tell of whole families were being Baptized you would need to show where it specifically excludes children. Would you mind posting the quote from the Didache which excludes children?
F
FCEGM
Guest
Thanks for the site, mm - looks like the conversation is remaining on a friendly note.
V
Verita
Guest
Montanaman, Thank you! I found your first post particularly inspiring! If you don’t mind I think I’ll use some of your questions the next time the subject comes up with my protestant mother. 
M
montanaman
Guest
For the record, the second section isn’t mine–I found it somewhere online from my voluminous bookmarks. I can’t remember which one…Montanaman, Thank you! I found your first post particularly inspiring! If you don’t mind I think I’ll use some of your questions the next time the subject comes up with my protestant mother.
Protestant mother? Oy!
FC,
We try to keep it friendly. We all started out very differently on another forum, but after a couple (few?) years we sort of organically came together as buddies. On that site there is a Mormon, a Lutheran, a couple of non-denoms, a couple of Catholics and catachumens, and a Baptist. We often have wildly divergent views, but it’s amazing how civil it is. With the new site we’re developing we hope to keep the same kind of environment, but we’ll see what happens when it gets “on the grid.”
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
It excludes children by clear implication. Read here:
Do you think that the Didiche would require children to fast for a day or two before? This would be cruel. Clearly, the Didiche speaks of adults.
Its silence on how to baptise children is no argument for the possibility of the practice, since the Didiche is a comprehensive guide to many practices, including the Eucharist.
S
Saint_Augustin
Guest
**We the Catholics baptize infants because of the original sin.
It’s false to say that an infant is without sin. They may not have many but surely one: the original sin. **
It’s false to say that an infant is without sin. They may not have many but surely one: the original sin. **
H
heisenburg
Guest
Not to be funny, but isnt that a loop hole… i dont think a baby is able to fast and thus is excluded…
However, continuing on that logic,
Are you going to also say that the Didiche is explicitly saying males only?
Please be careful when trying to read too much into things. If you are going to be that literal on the infant baptisim, you have to continue being that literal on men as well as it is in the same exact phrase…
in christ
L
Lampo
Guest
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. 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.
Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.
-from: scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III
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.
Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.
-from: scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
Not limited to adults, just to those who had faith. They could be children also. The pattern in the Bible is always: Preach the gospel, believe, be baptised. See the Ethiopian and Phillip. This is the pattern.
The arguments in favour that you cite is an argument based on the lack of proscription. This is a weak argument.
Do you have any evidence from the 1st century, either Scripture, tradition or art, that speaks clearly in favour of infant baptism?
L
Lampo
Guest
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
I’m not a Catholic scholar by any stretch of the imagination. I’m getting my info from scripturecatholic.com. I’m probably over my head talking with you. I’ll bow out and let the much more knowledgeable Catholics on this forum continue this discussion. Thanks.
H
heisenburg
Guest
Direct Biblical evidence of it being OK to Baptize…
start with Col. 2:11–12. Here, Paul is directly relating baptism to circumcision. In otherwords, to be baptized as a christian is comparable to being circumsized as a jew…
Step back for a second and look at what Jewsih law dictates.
Examples are replete through out the bible of people being baptized based on their faith. Thus the second aspect is talked about. There are also numerous instances where HOUSEHOLDS were baptized as mentioned. Paul directly mentions HOUSEHOLD, not those of faith in the house hold. he didnt exclude anyone in the house hold he said things like " and the entire household was baptized." Babies would have been in those households… Please dont read into it that he meant only the faithful, but didnt say it.
Another objection… People need to come to christ themselves… people cant be saved based on the faith of someone else.
Yes they can, and jesus did this. Remember the centurian in Matthew that came up to Jesus and said a servant of mine is sick, you need only say the word and he shall be healed? Was it the servants faith that healed him, or the faith of the servants master. It does not directly relate to baptizm, but it does set a precedent that the faith of some one (oh say a parent) can effect the state of soemone else (oh say a baby)
yet another objection But how can a baby repent of their own sins… they are a baby, they have no sin…
But they ARE born with the stain of original sin, and thus we get to the real purpose of baptizm. The purpose of baptizm with the holy spirit is the forgiveness of sins. it is also to make the soul ready for christ. For an adult convert this happens all at once. But, as mentioned, the faith of another, can effect the state of someone else. If the parent in faith and with the Holy spirit has the child baptized, the child is clensed of the stain of original sin, and making the soul ready for christ as christ cannot enter a soul that has this stain on it. (thus is why it is siad you must be born again of water and of the spirit.) In otherwords, the way is paved to christ by the infant baptizm.
Now, each and everyone of these concepts comes DIRECTLY out of the bible.
Is baptizm related to circumcision? Yes… in the bible
Was it mentioned that entire households that would have included babies were baptized? yes… in the bible
Does the faith of another affect the faith of someone else? yes… In the bible
Does Baptizm remove the stain of original sin? Yes… In the Bible.
Does the bible at times seem to mostly focus on baptizm for the converted faithful? Yes, but all of the ingredients for infant baptizm being valid are in there as well both directly and indirectly. To say it is not is ignoring scripture and believing only what you want to believe because beleiving otherwise is too hard to fathom. Who ever said having faith was easy…
Peace to you always
start with Col. 2:11–12. Here, Paul is directly relating baptism to circumcision. In otherwords, to be baptized as a christian is comparable to being circumsized as a jew…
Step back for a second and look at what Jewsih law dictates.
- If a Child is born into a jewsih familiy, they were obligated to have that new child circumsized into the Jewish Faith. It is not dependant on the Faith of the Child, but on the Faith of the Parents. Not doing so would be blasphemous
- If a Man decides to become a Jew later in life, he too must be circumsized as an outward sign of his faith.
- If a child is born to a christian family, the new child must be baptized into the christian faith as it relates to circumcision, not on the childs faith, but on the faith of his/her parents
- If an adult choses to become christian, he must be baptised based on HIS faith.
Examples are replete through out the bible of people being baptized based on their faith. Thus the second aspect is talked about. There are also numerous instances where HOUSEHOLDS were baptized as mentioned. Paul directly mentions HOUSEHOLD, not those of faith in the house hold. he didnt exclude anyone in the house hold he said things like " and the entire household was baptized." Babies would have been in those households… Please dont read into it that he meant only the faithful, but didnt say it.
Another objection… People need to come to christ themselves… people cant be saved based on the faith of someone else.
Yes they can, and jesus did this. Remember the centurian in Matthew that came up to Jesus and said a servant of mine is sick, you need only say the word and he shall be healed? Was it the servants faith that healed him, or the faith of the servants master. It does not directly relate to baptizm, but it does set a precedent that the faith of some one (oh say a parent) can effect the state of soemone else (oh say a baby)
yet another objection But how can a baby repent of their own sins… they are a baby, they have no sin…
But they ARE born with the stain of original sin, and thus we get to the real purpose of baptizm. The purpose of baptizm with the holy spirit is the forgiveness of sins. it is also to make the soul ready for christ. For an adult convert this happens all at once. But, as mentioned, the faith of another, can effect the state of someone else. If the parent in faith and with the Holy spirit has the child baptized, the child is clensed of the stain of original sin, and making the soul ready for christ as christ cannot enter a soul that has this stain on it. (thus is why it is siad you must be born again of water and of the spirit.) In otherwords, the way is paved to christ by the infant baptizm.
Now, each and everyone of these concepts comes DIRECTLY out of the bible.
Is baptizm related to circumcision? Yes… in the bible
Was it mentioned that entire households that would have included babies were baptized? yes… in the bible
Does the faith of another affect the faith of someone else? yes… In the bible
Does Baptizm remove the stain of original sin? Yes… In the Bible.
Does the bible at times seem to mostly focus on baptizm for the converted faithful? Yes, but all of the ingredients for infant baptizm being valid are in there as well both directly and indirectly. To say it is not is ignoring scripture and believing only what you want to believe because beleiving otherwise is too hard to fathom. Who ever said having faith was easy…
Peace to you always
M
mercygate
Guest
Since no objection to infant baptism was ever raised until the Reformation, that in itself testifies to its authenticity.
Moreover, the argument against infant baptism supposedly based on Scripture is moot since the universal practice of the Church at the time the New Testament was ratified was to baptize infants. Thus, the witness of history testifies to the interpretation of those scriptural passages which appear to affirm infant baptism.
Moreover, the argument against infant baptism supposedly based on Scripture is moot since the universal practice of the Church at the time the New Testament was ratified was to baptize infants. Thus, the witness of history testifies to the interpretation of those scriptural passages which appear to affirm infant baptism.
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
“Like children” is not children. And the 1st century Christians did baptise children, when they made a commitment of faith. Just not infants.
M
mercygate
Guest
Irenaeus of Lyons in Adversus haereses (ca. 185 A.D.) speaks of Christ becoming “an infant to sanctify infants.”
Hippolytus of Rome in *The Apostolic Tradition (ca. 215 A.D.), *second only to the Didache in antiquity, says “Baptise first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”
By 244 A.D., Origen, without any sense of novelty, notes that baptism of infants is the accepted practice: “according to the usage of the Church baptism is given even to infants.”
The Bible is not a cookbook or a manual of standard operating procedures. The problem with a ‘scripture only’ approach to this issue is that it extracts scripture from its true context: i.e., the actual life and practice of the Church in which it emerged.
Hippolytus of Rome in *The Apostolic Tradition (ca. 215 A.D.), *second only to the Didache in antiquity, says “Baptise first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”
By 244 A.D., Origen, without any sense of novelty, notes that baptism of infants is the accepted practice: “according to the usage of the Church baptism is given even to infants.”
The Bible is not a cookbook or a manual of standard operating procedures. The problem with a ‘scripture only’ approach to this issue is that it extracts scripture from its true context: i.e., the actual life and practice of the Church in which it emerged.
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
Still no 1st Century support for infant baptism from the ECFs.
The problem with a “tradition and srcripture” approach is that the tradition that one accepts is necessarily arbitrary and capriciously accepted, because usually you can find an ECF who disagrees.
Unless of course you can show me that the ECFs were united on the issue, in which case tradition supports your case. But all the 1st century fathers support adult baptism.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Prove it!
M
mercygate
Guest
Who are those first century Fathers again? And what are those quotes? I might have missed a step in this thread. Aside from the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas (which speaks of baptism only with respect to whether a baptized person may be readmitted to the community after penance), first century Christian writings, other than the New Testament which, as you know, is not definitive on the subject of infant baptism, are pretty scarce. I count Clement of Rome, who died around 101 A.D., and Ignatius of Antioch, who died in 115 as the only two names on my list. You got anybody else?
D
DeFide
Guest
JesusfMadrid had no quotes that forbid infant baptism. What gets me is that we have lots of explicit evidence of infant baptism in the Church long before the canonization of the books that were deemed to belong in the New Testament.
So, if JesusfMadrid thinks that these people are a bunch of heretics who miraculously managed to erase all history of controversy from the “new” practice of infant baptism, why doesn’t he throw his Bible in the trash?
Instead, the biggest controversy on the matter we find is how many days to wait for bapism after birth!:
In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)
W
Windmill
Guest
Seems like JesusforMadrid is really stretching things here.
To say that a practice like infant baptism just sprung up all over the place in a matter of less than 100 years without any debate is reeeeeeeally stretching it. I mean, to say “You have second-century facts to support your claim, but not first-century”, all-the-while standing on this idea of “only an adult can fast, therefore we MUST conclude that only adults were baptized”…it’s all very intellectually insulting to expect others to believe.
I have a counter challenge:
If you agree that there is substantial second century proof for infant baptism (something you consider heretical), and you claim that first century Christians would have balked at such an idea, then please produce proof, any proof, of any kind of debate on this topic during this period.
To say that a practice like infant baptism just sprung up all over the place in a matter of less than 100 years without any debate is reeeeeeeally stretching it. I mean, to say “You have second-century facts to support your claim, but not first-century”, all-the-while standing on this idea of “only an adult can fast, therefore we MUST conclude that only adults were baptized”…it’s all very intellectually insulting to expect others to believe.
I have a counter challenge:
If you agree that there is substantial second century proof for infant baptism (something you consider heretical), and you claim that first century Christians would have balked at such an idea, then please produce proof, any proof, of any kind of debate on this topic during this period.
- Status