SPLIT: Baptism should be only for adults

[pigtown]

This question made me think of the many infants who have been baptized. They certainly hadn’t had the chance to know or believe anything. Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense to be baptized as an adult when you can know, understand and, hopefully, believe.

 

[FastLearner]

This question made me think of the many infants who have been baptized. They certainly hadn’t had the chance to know or believe anything. Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense to be baptized as an adult when you can know, understand and, hopefully, believe.

Below the age of reason, the parents provide consent that they will raise the child to understand the Faith. If the parents to not provide consent, or if there is reasonable believe that they will not raise the child in the Faith, the Church will not baptize the child.

If you would like to dispute infant baptism, you can head over to the Apologists forum or to the Non-Catholic Religions forum (since many Christian denominations also believe in infant baptism). Either of those forums would provide a more lively debate.

 

[grandfather]

This question made me think of the many infants who have been baptized. They certainly hadn’t had the chance to know or believe anything. Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense to be baptized as an adult when you can know, understand and, hopefully, believe.

The Church has been baptizing infants since the first century. This is part of the historical record. The first Protestant denominations did the same. In modern times some Protestants stopped baptizing infants and that practice caught on among Protestants. Assume they are right, and you are in your personal opinion. It is wrong to baptize non-adults. That would mean the Church was wrong for most of the entire Christian age. You are right and Saints Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas, Anslem, Francis, Dominic, every pope were all wrong. You must be very very wise.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[JustaServant]

Maybe this illustration will help:
Reading thru a magazine once I came upon an interesting collection of photos. The first picture is of a tiny infant wearing a pair of oversized adult bluejeans. One could hardly see the baby. The next photos showed every year for the next fifteen years. At the age of fifteen the child has grown into his bluejeans.
That’s Baptism.
You grow into who you are. Baptism is not my announcment that I have enough faith to recieve it. It is finally recieving by faith what was freely given to me in Baptism.

 

[edjco]

This question made me think of the many infants who have been baptized. They certainly hadn’t had the chance to know or believe anything. Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense to be baptized as an adult when you can know, understand and, hopefully, believe.

It may help to make sense to you if seen in the light of Scripture:

 Let’s look at the issue first from the Old Covenant/New Covenant perspective. In the Old Covenant, a person entered into the Covenant by circumcision. This was done when a baby was 8 days old. This was an outward sign that the baby was part of the Covenant with God. In the New Covenant, what would have replaced this? How would someone enter into the New Covenant? Baptism! So if under the Old Covenant babies were allowed, wouldn’t it make sense that babies were welcomed into the New Covenant also?

Acts 2:38-Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now read the next line:

Acts 2:39-“For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

 

[ryanoneil]

Acts 2:39-“For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which includes infants.

When they came on the eighth day to circumcise the child, they were going to call him Zechariah after his father (Luke 1:59)

They have been informed that you are teaching all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses and that you are telling them not to circumcise their children or to observe their customary practices. (Acts 21:21)

 

[Randy_Carson]

This question made me think of the many infants who have been baptized. They certainly hadn’t had the chance to know or believe anything. Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense to be baptized as an adult when you can know, understand and, hopefully, believe.

The Case for Infant Baptism

1.   The Church was given all authority to bind and loose on earth; “all authority” includes the authority to baptize infants.

2.   No verse of scripture explicitly forbids the baptism of infants. (ie, Thou shalt not…)

3.   Baptism is called the “circumcision of Christ”. Circumcision was the ritual of initiation by which Jewish parents brought their children into the Old Covenant; baptism is the ritual of initiation by which Christian parents bring their children into the Church.

4.   Numerous passages in the New Testament reveal that whole households were baptized (one after midnight); it is likely that these households included children below the age of reason.

5. Historical evidence shows that the early Church practiced infant baptism.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

The previous answers are good ones but I think an important point must be made. In order for anyone to say that only adults should be baptized, they must have a radically different understanding of what baptism is. I cannot imagine any Christian who believes that baptism cleanses us from all sin, including the stain of original sin, would ever deny a child that grace from God. I believe, then, that the argument should probably focus on the reality of God’s grace, imparted at baptism, rather than the age in which we should receive it. Possibly the reality of original sin is also an important point to make. If one does not believe in original sin, as the Catholic Church defines it, then it is easy to see why they would think infants do not need to be baptized. If one comes to the Catholic understanding of original sin and the"washing of regeneration", then there would be no question of infants being baptized.

It’s sort of sad to me that people say a child should be allowed to grow up and just make their choice to be baptized. As parents, we are responsible for the whole child-- their physical needs and their spiritual needs. Do we let our children choose to eat only cake and ice cream every day? Or do we give them all that they need for their physical nourishment-- vegetables, grains, etc? As parents, we need to attend to our child’s spiritual nourishment as well. Baptism is the beginning of that spiritual nourishment; it is where our children are born again of water and Spirit.

 

[Irish_Becca]

Maybe this illustration will help:
Reading thru a magazine once I came upon an interesting collection of photos. The first picture is of a tiny infant wearing a pair of oversized adult bluejeans. One could hardly see the baby. The next photos showed every year for the next fifteen years. At the age of fifteen the child has grown into his bluejeans.
That’s Baptism.
You grow into who you are. Baptism is not my announcment that I have enough faith to recieve it. It is finally recieving by faith what was freely given to me in Baptism.

Interesting illustration. I like it.

 

[Irish_Becca]

The previous answers are good ones but I think an important point must be made. In order for anyone to say that only adults should be baptized, they must have a radically different understanding of what baptism is. I cannot imagine any Christian who believes that baptism cleanses us from all sin, including the stain of original sin, would ever deny a child that grace from God. I believe, then, that the argument should probably focus on the reality of God’s grace, imparted at baptism, rather than the age in which we should receive it. Possibly the reality of original sin is also an important point to make. If one does not believe in original sin, as the Catholic Church defines it, then it is easy to see why they would think infants do not need to be baptized. If one comes to the Catholic understanding of original sin and the"washing of regeneration", then there would be no question of infants being baptized.

It’s sort of sad to me that people say a child should be allowed to grow up and just make their choice to be baptized. As parents, we are responsible for the whole child-- their physical needs and their spiritual needs. Do we let our children choose to eat only cake and ice cream every day? Or do we give them all that they need for their physical nourishment-- vegetables, grains, etc? As parents, we need to attend to our child’s spiritual nourishment as well. Baptism is the beginning of that spiritual nourishment; it is where our children are born again of water and Spirit.

You raise some very good points I will use in future debates. Why deny any child God’s grace through baptism? That’s a good question. I’d be interested to hear the responses.

 

[ryanoneil]

If you believe as the Church does there is no reason to deny any child God’s grace through baptism.

When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (Mark 10:14)

 

[JustaServant]

Genesis 17
1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2And I will **make my covenant **between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee;** Every man child among you shall be circumcised. **

11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12And** he that is eight days old **shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

23And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money,** every male among the men of Abraham’s house**; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

27And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

Genesis 21:4
4And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

Colossians 2
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Acts 16:15 (King James Version)

15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

1 Corinthians 1:16 **
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas**: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

**Acts 2: **

38
Peter (said) to them, “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.
39
For the promise is made to you** and to your children** and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

 

[Church_Militant]

Baptism should be only for adults

Sure…the same way that circumcision was. [sign]NOT![/sign]

 

[Philthy]

This question made me think of the many infants who have been baptized. They certainly hadn’t had the chance to know or believe anything. Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense to be baptized as an adult when you can know, understand and, hopefully, believe.

This would be true if Baptism is something that we do - but it isn’t, it is something that God does through others.
In addition, you are overlooking some serious problems with waiting until adulthood - namely that people die at any age and they may never make it to adulthood. Unless you are of the opinion that all infants and young children who die before reaching adulthood automatically go to Heaven, what do you propose? Whatever it is that you propose, know for sure that it didnt come from Sacred Scripture nor from the Church. In addition, know that it is nothing that was ever practiced at any time in the Church. The best and earliest testimony we have is that babies were baptized, and that the faith of their parents - just like the faith of the centurian who’s daughter Jesus healed based on his faith - is good enough in God’s eyes.

Blessings

 

[JustaServant]

This would be true if Baptism is something that we do - but it isn’t, it is something that God does through others.

Exactly.
What can be more helpless than an infant putting themselves into the hands of the baptizer? It is purely God’s grace.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Excluding infants from baptism makes a lot of worldly sense it seems very logical.

Yet let’s just look at say the very first baptism recorded in the Bible. The baptism unto Moses.

1Co 10:2 ESV
(2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

I would hope since it’s called a baptism in scripture we wouldn’t have to argue if it’s a baptism or not.

I guess if one is intending to go into the wilderness and to the promised land it would make sense to exclude the infants. For they surely could not survive. Matter of fact, they were expected to perish by the people.

Deu 1:39 ESV
(39) And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Instead of the infants becoming prey, it was the parents who perished in the wilderness. Matter of fact the Deu. verse is right when God is telling them they will perish without going into the promised land, but their children will enter in.

Such is the way of God different from man.

And by the way, water was actually applied to the infants by God it was done through rain. A sprinkling or pouring you’d have to say. There was an immersion involved in the firt baptism, the Egyptian were immersed.

Psa 77:17 ESV
(17) The clouds poured out water; the skies gave forth thunder; your arrows flashed on every side.

So the first baptism included infants, could they understand? No, even the older ones are said not to posses the knowledge of good or evil. Could they walk, no. Yet they were baptised by God, and were saved by God.

I guess God didn’t wait for them to have an inner change and be able to give a testimony before permitting them baptism. Instead, of relying on them, it relied on God. I would suggest doing the same.

 

[JustaServant]

I guess God didn’t wait for them to have an inner change and be able to give a testimony before permitting them baptism. Instead, of relying on them, it relied on God. I would suggest doing the same.

This was the hardest of all for me to get before I reverted. I got the sacraments, the Eucharist (surprisingly I never had the problem evangelicals had in understanding the Eucharist). But Baptism was different. It wasn’t just being convinced by scripture or the practices of the Early Church, I had to shift my brain into a totally different direction. Away from the fundamentalist way of: salvation first, then Baptism. That is not an easy thing to do.

I think it would do well for apologists to focus on the issue of Baptism more, as it truly is the starting point.
Baptism is completely God’s grace.

 

[yablabo]

This question made me think of the many infants who have been baptized. They certainly hadn’t had the chance to know or believe anything. Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense to be baptized as an adult when you can know, understand and, hopefully, believe.

The Church doesn’t agree…since in teaching of the highest authority, they’ve condemned people who say that Baptism should not be given to infants, but only to adults.

***Second Lateran Council

Canons***

1. Those who, simulating a kind of religiosity, condemn
2. the sacrament of the Lord’s Body and Blood,
3. the Baptism of children,
4. the priesthood and other ecclesiastical orders, and
5. legitimate marriages,

we expel from the Church of God and condemn as heretics, and prescribe that they be constrained by the secular powers. We also bind up their defenders in the fetter of the same condemnation.

***The Council of Vienne

Decrees***

All are faithfully to profess that there is one Baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith’.

We believe that when Baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, it is **a perfect means of salvation for **both adults and children.

***The Council of Trent

Session 5***

If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam, - which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, - is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the One Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath reconciled us to God in His own Blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of Baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.

If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life
everlasting,- whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of Baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, - let him be anathema.

– Nicole

 

[sckcd]

Before I came to understand more about the Catholic Church I, too, strongly disagreed about infant baptism. The reason being, as a Baptist I had an entirely different view of baptism. To us, baptism isn’t like an initiation into the faith, but an outward sign of obedience *after *receiving Christ as Lord and Saviour. It’s a step we take after receving salvation to ceremoniously “wash away” our sins and “be born again” of water and spirit. As a Baptist who is learning more about Catholicism, I see the Catholic view of it clearly now and agree with it.

Before, I thought it was so wrong to baptize an infant who obviously had no choice or say in the matter. From a Baptist POV, baptism is the last step, not the first, and we view it differently so it’s understandable why many non-infant-baptizing people think it doesn’t make sense. So to me it was like a Catholic confirming an infant. But I now see what it really means in the Catholic Church and I really like the idea of it.

So I think that if other Protestants think the way I did, then you can see why it’s such an issue to them. They have probably never had it explained properly. My Catholic husband explained it to me, but not very well, and when we had our first son baptized I was very unsettled about it. Now we are having our 10wk old baptized in a couple of weeks and I am very happy about it after finding out more about the meaning of it.