The Case For Infant Baptism

[SFLCatholic]

We all can go back and see what you quoted and your specific reply to that quote.

Here it is: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2692974&postcount=1

Please.

Again, you refuse to explain how the Centurion’s servant (non infant) makes the case for infant baptism.

It is your own defense, so why you would not elaborate is puzzling.

…

Oh please. Maurin very clearly posted how this verse makes the case for infant baptism.

How convenient of you to purposely disregard it.

Here is what she said:

It seems that the faith of the one in authority is sufficient for Jesus to extend His Grace to those under the authority of him.

Atemi, why do you insist on twisting things around and playing unfair? It does not help your case at all.

 

[SFLCatholic]

For the same reason He could heal my pet, my friends, or my parents if I asked in faith as well.

Now you only need to explain how this makes the case for infant baptism.

…

Lets re-post Maurin’s answer to this. Its a very succint, accurate and definitive answer to your question. And an answer I get the impression you do not like because you purposely disregard it.

It seems that the faith of the one in authority is sufficient for Jesus to extend His Grace to those under the authority of him.

 

[maurin]

And there you go, Atemi!

thanks, SFLCatholic.

Atemi,

Non-denom was asking about Baptism. I responded.

so maybe you can answer the question: why does Jesus save the Centurion’s Servant from death based on the Centurion’s Faith? Why does the Evangelist take care to highlight the Centurion’s authority over his minions, and compare that authority to the Lord’s “for I too am a person subject to authority…” (v8).

Maybe it is you who need to keep on topic in this conversation. I have already brought it to your attention that your offenses are no defenses.

 

[Pax]

I would like to know where it tells us in scripture “not to baptize infants and young children.” Likewise, I would like to be shown the consensus among the ECFs that we are “not to baptize infants and young children.” Likewise, I would like to see historical data that shows a consensus in practice that “prohibits baptism of infants and children.”

Can anyone provide this data? The simple answer is “no.” The reason no one can supply this data is because:

1. There is no such data.
2. The consensus of the data supports infant baptism.

 

[SFLCatholic]

For the same reason He could heal my pet, my friends, or my parents if I asked in faith as well.

So asking in Faith is OK for baptism to be effective?

Then by your own logic, asking for an infant to be baptised is acceptable if asked in faith.

Following this logic, it would further be acceptable that a community of the faithful entrusting thier spiritual leaders to make decisions for them in regards to such acts as baptism, would also be acceptable since its predicated on an act of faith between the congregant and the spiritual leader.

Hmmmm…ok. I can live with that. It directly mirrors the passage Maurin was quoting.

But if its not, as you say its not in the case of infant baptism, then no baptism would be valid of any person at any age regardless of faith. Unless of course you are going to start dictating who should be baptised by projecting your personal faith standards onto another person. But this is problematic too because it invalidates that other person’s faith.

Your premise is faulty and dangerous.

One can follow your logic out to argue that no one need be baptised at all. And using your logic, one definitely does not need an intercessor to do the baptising since you qualify faith as a personal matter.

Your logic does not work according to Biblical standard. No where is there an example of a person baptising thier self in the name of the Lord Jesus. If there is, I missed it.

Your logic is against the purpose of the baptismal sacrament.

So Atemi, which is it?

Does faith based baptism work? Or doesn’t it?

And let me answer for you in advance, the Catholic position on infant baptism:

Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” John 3:5

This was a direct command from Jesus and includes ***all people of all ages. ***Its a very clear and generally applicable directive.

So in keeping with this commandment and the innate desire to protect your children and give them every opportunity for salvation, there is absolutely no reason not to baptise your infants.

In fact if you do not baptise your infants, you are not obeying Jesus’ commands.

 

[threadkiller]

“And she went and did as Elijah said; and she , and he, and her household ate for many days”. 1 Kings 17:15. The infant son of the “Widow of Zarephath” is referred to as “Her household.” This probably prefigures Barnabas’ and Paul’s ministry to the widow Lydia in which she and her **household/infant **were baptized. ouch!
In the Old Testament children were brought into covenant with the Lord by circumcision. Lev.12:3, Luke 2:22-24. In the New Testament children are brought into covenant with God by baptism. Col.2:11,12, Mat.19:14(…“Let the children come to Me[God]”…). Folks like Atemi are the disciples our blessed Lord rebuked in Mat.19:13. They violate the scripture they profess to adhere to by denying their children baptism, thereby holding their infants hostage from God. Moses did it, inadvertantly I suppose, and it almost got him killed. Ex.4:24-26

 

[Mannyfit75]

justasking4:

Jesus. See for example Mark 16:16;Acts 10:43-48; 1630-33.

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all of them who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, and because of the gift of the Holy Spirit had poured oujt even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” And he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. Acts 44-48

juskasking4:

The major problem with it is that it violates the divine order that a person must first believe and then be baptised.

Not either of the passages your provide say that it violates. It is only according to your own self-interpretation of the passage. From the passage you cited, yes, adults must believe in order to be baptized.

Jesus though in his ministry said, “Let the children come to me. Do not hinder them.”

Do you want to deny children or infants to be save? Infant baptism my friend takes away original sin (the first sin committed by our first parents, Adam and Eve. Through their disobedience, mankind inherit the original sin. Mankind have the inclination to commit sin. Infants have original sin, and in infant baptism, the original sin is cleansed. Baptism making us reborn in the spirit.

Those who believe that we should baptize adults only quote St. Mark 16, 16 for support: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Therefore, only those who have first undergone a “born again” experience by accepting Jesus Christ as their “personal Lord and Savior” can be baptized. It is also argued that Jesus Christ Himself was not baptized until the age of thirty.

According to St. Paul, baptism in the Christian religion replaces the Jewish rite of circumcision (Col. 2, 11-12). This Jewish rite was normally given to infants and made them “religiously” clean and a member of God’s Chosen Race. With the coming of the Christianity, infants were to be accorded a similar and even greater spiritual privilege.

 

[maurin]

So asking in Faith is OK for baptism to be effective?

Then by your own logic, asking for an infant to be baptised is acceptable if asked in faith.

Following this logic, it would further be acceptable that a community of the faithful entrusting thier spiritual leaders to make decisions for them in regards to such acts as baptism, would also be acceptable since its predicated on an act of faith between the congregant and the spiritual leader.

Hmmmm…ok. I can live with that. It directly mirrors the passage Maurin was quoting.

But if its not, as you say its not in the case of infant baptism, then no baptism would be valid of any person at any age regardless of faith. Unless of course you are going to start dictating who should be baptised by projecting your personal faith standards onto another person. But this is problematic too because it invalidates that other person’s faith.

Your premise is faulty and dangerous.

One can follow your logic out to argue that no one need be baptised at all. And using your logic, one definitely does not need an intercessor to do the baptising since you qualify faith as a personal matter.

Your logic does not work according to Biblical standard. No where is there an example of a person baptising thier self in the name of the Lord Jesus. If there is, I missed it.

Your logic is against the purpose of the baptismal sacrament.

So Atemi, which is it?

Does faith based baptism work? Or doesn’t it?

And let me answer for you in advance, the Catholic position on infant baptism:

Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” John 3:5

This was a direct command from Jesus and includes ***all people of all ages. ***Its a very clear and generally applicable directive.

So in keeping with this commandment and the innate desire to protect your children and give them every opportunity for salvation, there is absolutely no reason not to baptise your infants.

In fact if you do not baptise your infants, you are not obeying Jesus’ commands.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Catholics and Non-Catholic Christians differ radically as to the meaning and effect of Baptism. NCC hold that baptism is only an ordinance whereby the “born-again” adult makes a public manifestation of his conversion. It is not necessary for salvation as the person has already been saved by accepting Jesus as his “personal Lord and Savior.” Baptism does not infuse any grace to re-generate the soul as the candidate’s sins are “covered up” with the acceptance of Christ. Infants without reason who die unbaptized go straight to heaven as they only need to accept Christ as Savior after they have committed sin. Therefore, baptism of infants is pointless.

Catholics, on the other hand, assert that Baptism is an obligatory sacrament instituted by Christ which in itself makes us born-again: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God” (St. John 3, 5 [Douai]). Further, baptism bestows the grace it signifies into the soul of the recipient. This includes sanctifying grace, the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, the infused theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, the infused moral virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, as well as the uncreated grace of the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity: “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them” (St. John 14, 23). Lastly, the candidate receives a right to actual graces to assist him in carrying out his baptismal promises. Consequent upon infusion of grace, all sin, original and actual, is forgiven and all temporal punishment due to sin is remitted. Without this infusion of grace the soul cannot be in a fit state to behold the Beatific Vision upon death. Baptism has all these effects irrespective of the age of the candidate.

On this basis Catholics see no reason to withhold the wonderful effects of Baptism from infants until they reach the age of reason. By baptizing infants, the Catholic Church frees them as soon as possible from the dominion of Satan and admits them into the company of children of God: “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs” (St. Matt. 19, 14). No where is it stated in Sacred Scripture that Baptism be administered only to adults.

With the enormous growth of the Church after Pentecost, large numbers of adult Jews and Pagans were being converted (Acts 2, 41). Obviously, these new Christians first had to believe in Jesus Christ before being baptized. However, in the case of some of these adults their entire families were baptized with them. Probably some of these families would have had infant children:

(The family of Cornelius and all the persons present in his house during St. Peter’s visit) “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10, 47);

“A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us…The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. When she and her household were baptized, she urged us…” (Acts 16, 14-15);

“At the same hour of the night he (the jailer) took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay” (Acts 16, 33);

“I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1, 16).

As for the claim that Jesus Christ was baptized only when He was an adult, it should be realized that Our Lord did not receive Christian baptism, in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the baptism of St. John the Baptist, which was only a symbolic washing and did not infuse grace.

It is entirely false that infant baptism began late in the Church’s history. However, it is true that after three centuries of evangelization generations were now Christian by family tradition and this led to a decrease in the rate of adult catechumens and baptisms

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Early Church Fathers also affirm this very clearly.

The Fathers:

St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition (C. 215 A.D.):

“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.”

Origen, Homilies on Leviticus (Post 244 A.D.):

“…According to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.”

If there was controversy, it was only about the age at which children should be baptized…

Tertullian, Baptism (Inter 200 - 206 A.D.):

“According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, is it necessary - if it be not a case of necessity - that the sponsors too be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition?”

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letters to Fidus (C. 251-252 A.D.):

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: you said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth…,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.”

Nothing changed in the fourth century according to the testimonies of St. John Chrysostom (In Sermo 11:17, 28) and St. Ambrose, in his work on Abraham (2:81

 

[Atemi]

A
Atemi,

Non-denom was asking about Baptism. I responded.

He was also speaking of repentance…to which you also specifically responded.

There is no baptism without repentance.

so maybe you can answer the question: why does Jesus save the Centurion’s Servant from death based on the Centurion’s Faith?

It is called intercession.

Basic Christianity.

Why does the Evangelist take care to highlight the Centurion’s authority over his minions, and compare that authority to the Lord’s “for I too am a person subject to authority…” (v8).

Only to highlight the Centurion’s faith in Jesus’ authority. So much so, that the Centurion believed wholeheartedly that Jesus could heal his servant with just a word and without traveling to see him personally.

Jesus surely DID NOT heal the servant only because someone in authority over the servant asked. As if Christ would not have honored the faith of someone who was not in authority over the servant. No way. Any fundamental understanding of the nature of Christ and the Gospel accounts shows such an idea to be false.

God honors the faith of ALL intercessors, regardless of their position over another (or lack thereof).

Again, this is basic Christianity.

Since one cannot repent for another adult, your comparison with the (adult) servant is moot.

…

 

[Atemi]

I would like to know where it tells us in scripture “not to baptize infants and young children.”

Instead of looking for what Scripture does not say, we should be obeying what it clearly does say.

The Holy Spirit explicitly commands that repentant disciples and believers be baptised. An infant can be neither.

This thread is about infants. Children can have faith and can repent.

Likewise, I would like to be shown the consensus among the ECFs that we are “not to baptize infants and young children.”

Since there is no consensus of the ECFs on just about anything, that point is moot.

Likewise, I would like to see historical data that shows a consensus in practice that “prohibits baptism of infants and children.”

What we do know is that the early church did not teach that infants were to be baptised. They may have allowed it in later years, but that is far different than what we see today.

…

 

[maurin]

He was also speaking of repentance…to which you also specifically responded.

There is no baptism without repentance.

It is called intercession.

Basic Christianity.

Only to highlight the Centurion’s faith in Jesus’ authority. So much so, that the Centurion believed wholeheartedly that Jesus could heal his servant with just a word and without traveling to see him personally.

God honors the faith of ALL intercessors, regardless of their position over another (or lack thereof).

Again, this is basic Christianity.

…

And you have made the case for infant Baptism!

Good job! And thanks for doing the work for us!

And I agree. Basic Christianity.

 

[Atemi]

And you have made the case for infant Baptism!

Good job! And thanks for doing the work for us!

If the Centurion’s servant was an infant, you might begin to have a point. Until then, no case has been made as far as his healing is concerned.

You remain empty-handed with that analogy, but don’t even know it.

…

 

[runandsew]

So Atemi, when do you think that the Christians started to bapize infants, and why do you think they started to do it. Also why do you think that the church leadership didn’t write a letter to the churches to discourage this practice, if infact the bible tells us only to baptize believing adults? I would think that there would have been a letter by the church fathers to straighten out this error.

 

[savedsinner]

If the Centurion’s servant was an infant, you might begin to have a point. Until then, no case has been made as far as his healing is concerned.

You remain empty-handed with that analogy, but don’t even know it.

…

Or else you don’t quite grasp it.

maybe we should start writing in parables.

 

[SFLCatholic]

It is called intercession.

Basic Christianity.

God honors the faith of ALL intercessors, regardless of their position over another (or lack thereof).

Again, this is basic Christianity.

Since one cannot repent for another adult, your comparison with the (adult) servant is moot.

So that whole Centurion passage Maurin quoted is useless? Jesus made a mistake?

Then whats the point of an intercessor if they are asking for repentance on your behalf?

I really don’t get your twisted logic.

 

[SFLCatholic]

If the Centurion’s servant was an infant, you might begin to have a point. Until then, no case has been made as far as his healing is concerned.

You remain empty-handed with that analogy, but don’t even know it.

…

ummmmm…yea…ok…

 

[maurin]

If the Centurion’s servant was an infant, you might begin to have a point. Until then, no case has been made as far as his healing is concerned.

You remain empty-handed with that analogy, but don’t even know it.

…

No, Atemi, not at all empty handed.

You can’t see the forest for all the trees!

 

[Atemi]

No, Atemi, not at all empty handed.

You can’t see the forest for all the trees!

The fact remains that the servant’s healing had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that his intercessor was his worldly superior.

The servant was also not an infant.
The servant was also not baptised.

There is nothing there to support infant baptism.

Nothing at all, no matter how desperately you feel you need to stretch.

Sorry.

…