The Case For Infant Baptism

[fellowChristian]

I think it is important to ask the question—Atemi

Q: On whose authority do you teach this?

Is the bible your sole authority?

Q: Where in the bible does it say that it is the sole authority?

It doesn’t.

Q:St. Paul tells us who is.

**1 Timothy 3:15 **

15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

Q: Which “church”

Well their were no “Protestants” until after 1517.

Q; What about

**Matthew 16:18 **

18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Q: Again which church?

And notice the church of Christ is built on Peter.Our first head bishop. Our first pope. (means pappa) The Catholic Church can trace each pope all the way back to Peter

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

And also that the “gates of Hades will not overcome it” that means the church Jesus built on Peter is still here!

Q: The bible is older then Martin Luther (1517) or King James (1534) so where did it come from?

The only church around The Catholic Church.
With God’s help the Bible was written by and for the Catholic Church.

Qrotestants are using our salvation history against us?

I know. It doesn’t make sense to me either.
Makes me wonder when you read

John 6:51-70 how do you abide in Jesus?
Or when you read
John 20:30 do you “freak out” and say
Where is the rest?

 

[savedsinner]

Wow.

Thanks for all that Scripture.

And you would think in all of that we would find somewhere someone either baptised an infant or taught to do so (considering how important the RCC today says it is).

Yet we have thousands of recorded baptisms yet not one was said to be a baby.

The significance of this cannot be overstated. The Holy Spirit did not make a clerical mistake in purposely not recording that for a witness.

…

You would think.

You would also think that if the Trinity is so important in Christian theology, it might have taught it explicitly in scripture.

You would think that if there was going to be a mistake by the Jews thinking that they could baptize infants, since they were already circumcising infants, there would be a warning not to do it in scripture, but there isn’t, this significance cannot be overstated either.

You are thinking like a 21 century non-Jew. The Bible was written at a time of 1 century Jews. They had a different view of family, of Church, and Community than we hold today.

When scipture is saying that whole households were baptized, you would assume, knowing how the Jews thought at that time, they would have included children.
They were not into individual personal relationships with God, like the Protestants of Today are, they were family oriented. Read the Old Testament, it is quite obvious how much they were family, and God’s family. To ascribe today’s values on them will lead you to incorrect interpretations which you seem to have here. I feel you are clouded by what you think Christianity should have been like by how you experience it today.

They would circumcise their infants, if baptism was any different, then there would have been a prohibition against it somewhere in the new testament, but there isn’t.

So even if it doesn’t mention infants, that doesn’t mean they can’t be baptized.

Try to put yourself into their mind set .

remember when interpreting scripture literally, you have to understand what the author meant at that time for that audience.

That audience were People who circumcised their infants so they would be in the family of God. Baptism replaced that, it brings us into the family of God.

 

[heisenburg]

Atemi,

You are arguing against points I am not making…

You say the faith of one does not effect another. but that is clearly NOT what happened in this case. For some reason, even though the bible says it was the faith of the centurion that saved his servant, you insist on saying that it was not the case.
Your right in saying that the centurion does not deal specifically with Baptism, but again, implicitly, the foundations of the argument are there.

second, In coming before the Church/Christ to get their child Baptized shows some level of faith. If they didn’t believe in God and Christs message, they wouldn’t do it. The argument of ‘thats what they thought they were suppose to do’ doesn’t hold much water. When someone doesn’t believe in something with respect to religion, they don’t do it.

The Parents had enough faith to come before God and ask him to baptize their child, it may be minuscule, but its there. Even if there understanding of that faith is off, they still showed some level of faith. so, no, I am not in contradiction of Catholic Doctrine.

That being said, you are right in saying that the parents do not save the child, it is still God. God is simply bestowing that Grace because it is asked for…

The whole free gift thing…

Or do you also not agree with the free gift as well…

All that aside… you still have a problem of adhering to an explicit only gospel. You accept not implicit evidence. Why? I have no clue… As mentioned, this is a very dangerous position to have as you invalidate almost all of Christianity.

If you insist on holding this, your own faith will become suspect because you therefore cannot believe in things like the Rapture, OSAS, Faith alone, Scripture Alone…etc things that you would seem to believe.

Further more, if you continued to examine your own faith with an explicit alone gospel, eventually, you would probably loose your own faith as it is impossible to properly worship Christ in an explicit gospel only message.

Consider the ramifications of what you say.

------- Complete Aside ----------------------

By the way, why do you seem so angry. It may just be the way your posts come across, but you seem to instant;y get hot under the collar if someone does not agree with you. There are many ways to speak to brothers in Christ without resorting to anger. Calling these apologetics forums bankrupt is just one example. You are free to disagree, but just because we do not see it the same way as you doesn’t mean we are bankrupt.

Relax, and speak in the love of Christ. I’m not saying you are being uncharitable, just take more time in considering how you post and how they come across. You can still post the same message, but with the love Christ intends.

This note applies to everyone though as there are several Catholics that do the same thing.

In Christ

 

[maurin]

We are not commanded to baptise the nations, but to baptise the disciples we’ve made of all the nations.

…

Are you rewriting Scripture now Atemi?

Mt 28:19-20

Go therefore, teach ye ALL NATIONS: baptizing THEM in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching THEM to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

I’m surprised at you Atemi. We all have Bibles.

 

[maurin]

You argue against the doctrine of the Catholic Church in order to promote the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

That is totally self defeating and shows the bankrupty in this whole apologetic so many are erroneously pursuing in this thread.

Unlike in the case of the Centurion and his servant, the faith of the parents is functionally irrelevant as to the salvific nature and validity of water baptism.

…

No, Atemi, you just don’t understand the Doctrines of the Catholic Church.

In the story of the Centurion’s Servant, it is not the servant who asks to be healed. It is his master who askes that the servant be healed.

Jesus heals the servant based on the faith of the Master, not the Servant.

In Baptism of infants, the same healing Graces of the Sacrament effect the infants’ Baptism, of course you are right, not the faith of the parents.

However, the saving Graces are administered based on the faith of the parents, not the infant. The same way that Jesus administered healing on the Servant based on the Master’s faith.

And to quote you, it would seem that the Servant’s faith is functionally irrelevant in the story, because we never meet him and do not know if he is a believer. He can lose Grace later on based on his own actions, but the initial infusion of Grace is granted by Jesus based on the Master’s faith. Same as with an infant and Baptism.

 

[maurin]

The Old Covenant included children.Why do you believe the New Covenant doesn’t?

**Exodus 12:24-28 **

**The Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died. **

**Joshua 5:2-7 **

God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.

**From the time of Christ (33ad) all the way until now (2007ad) the Catholic Church (the Original Church of Christ) has always included children. **

“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” **Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140). **

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”** Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4** **(A.D. 180). **

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” **Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215). **

“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” **Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233). **

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” **Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244). **

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and 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.” **Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244). **

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” **Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251). **

Notice the dates. The names. These are the Early Church Fathers. Some were educated by the Apostles themselves. These were the bishops who carried on the work of the Apostles. The denominations that split from the Catholic Church and “Protested” did not arise until 1517! So from the time of Moses until 1517 children were included in the Covenants between God and His people.It is not until after the “sifting” of the denominations do we start seeing children being excluded from these Covenants that God made with us. And only after 1517 in denominations created by men. Show me Scripture that says children should NOT be baptized.

**1 Corinthians 7:14 **

14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Fantastic Post!!!

Thanks!

 

[runandsew]

Wow.

Thanks for all that Scripture.

And you would think in all of that we would find somewhere someone either baptised an infant or taught to do so (considering how important the RCC today says it is).

Yet we have thousands of recorded baptisms yet not one was said to be a baby.

The significance of this cannot be overstated. The Holy Spirit did not make a clerical mistake in purposely not recording that for a witness.

…

Atemi,
I would think that since St. Polycarp was baptized as an infant, and since the fact that he was personally taught by St. John, the same John who was closest to Jesus, and who wrote about 1/5 of the New Testament, that St. Polycarp would have been re baptized as an adult once St. John found about his infant baptism if in fact that the early Church didn’t approve of infant baptism.
But we don’t see that in the history books or the early Christian writings.

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156)

Now, it is well documented that “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” was written the year after the saint’s execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant. And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John! Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants.

 

[Atemi]

Are you rewriting Scripture now Atemi?

Mt 28:19-20

Go therefore, teach ye ALL NATIONS: baptizing THEM in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching THEM to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

I’m surprised at you Atemi. We all have Bibles.

And has been pointed out, “the nations,” by definition, include everyone in them.

Of course, you know very well that we are not to baptise all the nations and everyone in them. We are only to baptise disciples…just like they did all through Scripture…what a surprise.

And it is funny that I cite a Catholic bible and you accuse me of rewriting Scripture.

LOL.

How appropriate!

…

 

[Atemi]

No, Atemi, you just don’t understand the Doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Actually I do, that is the problem.

In the story of the Centurion’s Servant, it is not the servant who asks to be healed. It is his master who askes that the servant be healed.

Jesus heals the servant based on the faith of the Master, not the Servant.

Why do you repeat what I clearly affirm everywhere else?

In Baptism of infants, the same healing Graces of the Sacrament effect the infants’ Baptism, of course you are right, not the faith of the parents.

Yes.

NOT the faith of the parents or anyone else for that matter.

ONLY the sacrament is salvific, not the faith of the parents. The faith, or lack thereof, of the parents has no bearing on the validity of the sacrament.

The false tie in with the Centurion and his faith is now rendered moot and irrelevant.

However, the saving Graces are administered based on the faith of the parents, not the infant. The same way that Jesus administered healing on the Servant based on the Master’s faith.

Wrong.

Again:

The faith, or lack thereof, of the parents has no bearing on the validity of the sacrament.

No one is initially justified by the faith of another…not in Catholicism or in all the rest of orthodox Christianity.

This whole analogy is empty and hollow as it does not even have the slightest bearing on infant baptism.

This has been proven.

…

 

[Atemi]

You would think that if there was going to be a mistake by the Jews thinking that they could baptize infants, since they were already circumcising infants, there would be a warning not to do it in scripture, but there isn’t, this significance cannot be overstated either.

No. They were not circumcising “infants.” They were circumcising baby boys alone.

Secondly, circumcision was not salvific and never was.

You are thinking like a 21 century non-Jew. The Bible was written at a time of 1 century Jews. They had a different view of family, of Church, and Community than we hold today.

And they did not baptise infants.

When scipture is saying that whole households were baptized, you would assume, knowing how the Jews thought at that time, they would have included children.

Incorrect.

One, just because a few households were mentioned, that surely does not mean that infants had to be present. Not in the least.

Secondly, as is the case with the jailor’s family, the household was baptised because they all believed Paul’s message.

They were not into individual personal relationships with God, like the Protestants of Today are, they were family oriented.

If you do not have a personal and individual relationship with your Father, then you do not have a relationship at all.

That is what relationship and family is all about.

Read the Old Testament, it is quite obvious how much they were family, and God’s family.

And they still were not baptising infants.

They would circumcise their infants, if baptism was any different, then there would have been a prohibition against it somewhere in the new testament, but there isn’t.

First of all, there was no prohibition because nobody was doing it during that time.

Secondly, why prohibit something we already have specific instructions on? The Scriptures do not prohibit that we baptise dogs or unbelievers either, yet we know from the text that that is not who we were already told to baptise.

We were told to baptise disciples of Jesus Christ and no one else…and you will find no one else being baptised among the thousands that were recorded in Scripture.

So even if it doesn’t mention infants, that doesn’t mean they can’t be baptized.

And even though it doesn’t mention dogs, that doesn’t mean they can’t be baptised…

remember when interpreting scripture literally, you have to understand what the author meant at that time for that audience.

That means not filling in the blanks with the doctrine of your choice.

That audience were People who circumcised their infants so they would be in the family of God. Baptism replaced that, it brings us into the family of God.

Wrong. The majority of the audience in the NT were Gentiles, not Jews circumcising their baby boys.

…

 

[Atemi]

Atemi,

You are arguing against points I am not making…

You say the faith of one does not effect another. but that is clearly NOT what happened in this case.

The case of the Centurion is not infant baptism.

Exactly.

For some reason, even though the bible says it was the faith of the centurion that saved his servant, you insist on saying that it was not the case.

Wrong.

I have said over and over that the faith of the Centurion is that which got his servant healed.

That is NOT what we find in infant baptism.

Your right in saying that the centurion does not deal specifically with Baptism, but again, implicitly, the foundations of the argument are there.

No they are not.

That was destroyed many posts ago.

ONLY the sacrament of baptism is salvific, not the faith of the parents. The faith, or lack thereof, of the parents has no bearing on the validity of the sacrament.

We cannot say the same of the Centurion.

second, In coming before the Church/Christ to get their child Baptized shows some level of faith.

Then you don’t know most of the Catholic parents that bring their babies forward to be baptised. Many of them haven’t been in a church since they were baptised, but the power of ritualism is very strong.

In any event, it is not the faith of the parents that initially justifies their baby. You should know this.

If they didn’t believe in God and Christs message, they wouldn’t do it.

Wrong. It is done all the time.

In any event, that is all irrelevant.

The argument of ‘thats what they thought they were suppose to do’ doesn’t hold much water. When someone doesn’t believe in something with respect to religion, they don’t do it.

Wrong. You have your eyes shut to the reality of what is going on around you.

The Parents had enough faith to come before God and ask him to baptize their child, it may be minuscule, but its there.

And if it is not, the sacrament is thus invalid and the baby is not initially justified?

No.

This is basic Catholicism. I should not have to repeat it over and over again on a board full of Catholics.

Even if there understanding of that faith is off, they still showed some level of faith. so, no, I am not in contradiction of Catholic Doctrine.

It is not their faith or lack thereof that jusitifies the baby…not in Catholic doctrine or anywhere else.

It is the sacrament and the sacrament alone which justifies. Faith need not apply.

All that aside… you still have a problem of adhering to an explicit only gospel. You accept not implicit evidence. Why? I have no clue… As mentioned, this is a very dangerous position to have as you invalidate almost all of Christianity.

There is no implicit evidence that infants were baptised in the Scriptures…but there is explicit and implicit evidence that they were not.

------- Complete Aside ----------------------

By the way, why do you seem so angry.

Not angry in the slightest, but I will admit that I do not have any love for false doctrine. Do you?

…

 

[SFLCatholic]

The case of the Centurion is not infant baptism.

Exactly.

Wrong.

I have said over and over that the faith of the Centurion is that which got his servant healed.

That is NOT what we find in infant baptism.

No they are not.

That was destroyed many posts ago.

ONLY the sacrament of baptism is salvific, not the faith of the parents. The faith, or lack thereof, of the parents has no bearing on the validity of the sacrament.

We cannot say the same of the Centurion.

Then you don’t know most of the Catholic parents that bring their babies forward to be baptised. Many of them haven’t been in a church since they were baptised, but the power of ritualism is very strong.

In any event, it is not the faith of the parents that initially justifies their baby. You should know this.

Wrong. It is done all the time.

In any event, that is all irrelevant.

Wrong. You have your eyes shut to the reality of what is going on around you.

And if it is not, the sacrament is thus invalid and the baby is not initially justified?

No.

This is basic Catholicism. I should not have to repeat it over and over again on a board full of Catholics.

It is not their faith or lack thereof that jusitifies the baby…not in Catholic doctrine or anywhere else.

It is the sacrament and the sacrament alone which justifies. Faith need not apply.

There is no implicit evidence that infants were baptised in the Scriptures…but there is explicit and implicit evidence that they were not.

Not angry in the slightest, but I will admit that I do not have any love for false doctrine. Do you?

…

The more I read your posts, the more I realize how off kilter, out of whack, insane, etc., your theology is.

Go back and re-read your posts before you write something else to contradict yourself on.

 

[maurin]

I have said over and over that the faith of the Centurion is that which got his servant healed.

…

Look at you!!! Making the case AGAIN for Infant Baptism!!!

 

[maurin]

NOT the faith of the parents or anyone else for that matter.

ONLY the sacrament is salvific, not the faith of the parents. The faith, or lack thereof, of the parents has no bearing on the validity of the sacrament.

The false tie in with the Centurion and his faith is now rendered moot and irrelevant.

…

I’m surprised at you, Atemi. You are usually so “on.”

Noone has argued that the faith of the parents has any bearing on the validity of the sacrament. Why do continue to bring it up?

The tie in with the Centurion and his Servant is quite clear: Jesus effects the Servant’s cure precisely because of the Centurion’s faith. Jesus washes original sin away from an Infant’s soul, precisely because the parents ask for the sacrament in faith.

But then again, you’ve been saying that all along!

 

[maurin]

And has been pointed out, “the nations,” by definition, include everyone in them.

Of course, you know very well that we are not to baptise all the nations and everyone in them. We are only to baptise disciples…just like they did all through Scripture…what a surprise.

And it is funny that I cite a Catholic bible and you accuse me of rewriting Scripture.

LOL.

How appropriate!

…

So you ARE rewriting Scripture, Atemi.

Nowhere in Matthew 28:19-20 is the disciples made in the nations mentioned. However Jesus does command “Go therefore, teach ye ALL NATIONS: baptizzing THEM in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching THEM to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

Funny that you mention a Catholic Bible. Like I’d have anything other.

 

[runandsew]

Just a little curious here Atemi,
Are you basing your objections just on your interpretation of scripture alone, or, are you taking into account the times and customs of the 1st century Jews.

Have you read books on the what life was like at the time of Jesus?

I have a book I would recommend, if you haven’t.
Daily Life in the Time of Jesus by Henri Daniel-Rops

 

[Atemi]

So you ARE rewriting Scripture, Atemi.

Nowhere in Matthew 28:19-20 is the disciples made in the nations mentioned. However Jesus does command “Go therefore, teach ye ALL NATIONS: baptizzing THEM in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching THEM to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

Funny that you mention a Catholic Bible. Like I’d have anything other.

That’s what I quoted that talked about baptising the disciples made in the nations: a Catholic bible.

LOL.

I cannot make you believe your own bibles.

…

 

[Atemi]

Look at you!!! Making the case AGAIN for Infant Baptism!!!

Yet faith does not, in any shape or form, initially justify babies and grant them the forgiveness of sin.

Hello?

…

 

[Atemi]

Just a little curious here Atemi,
Are you basing your objections just on your interpretation of scripture alone, or, are you taking into account the times and customs of the 1st century Jews.

Both…but Scripture is more than enough to see that the baptism of infants was not taught by the Apostles.

The actual practice in the earliest church era confirms this.

…

 

[guanophore]

This is from the Early Church Fathers
“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and 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.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

“It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration.” Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).

“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

“Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381).

“We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins.” John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (A.D. 388).

It seems that you did not address whagt I posted. Instead you chose to merely copy and paste a bunch of quotes that do not answer the question.

Why?

…

Because you made two inaccurate assertions, one that this practice was not rec’d from the Apostles, and another that it was not written about in the early fathers. The quotes show that you are wrong on both counts.