The Case For Infant Baptism

[guanophore]

First of all, the servant in question was undoubtedly an adult, not an infant.

I don’t think the age is relevant here. what is relevant is that Jesus accepted the faith of the petitioner, and poured out his healing on the recipient based on the petitioners faith.

What you are basically saying here is that one adult can repent and have faith for another adult and thus they can be initially justified before God.

No, that is not what it being said. What is being said is that God will take into account the faith of the petitioner, and pour out His grace on a third party.

You are saying that an adult can repent ***for another adult*** and they can be saved.

No. this was not said either.

This is not even within the pale of orthodox Christianity as a whole, nevermind that is contradicts RC doctrine.

…

what is being taught is that Jesus will accept the faith of the person in authority, and will pour out His grace on those for whom that individual petitions. Just as Joshua spoke for his whole household>…

Josh 24:15
15 And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; **but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." **

 

[guanophore]

That is what you are saying. You 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.”

You post this specifically in a thread about the sacrament of initial justification, the forgiveness of sin, and salvation.

What was said is that Jesus extended His grace to one under the petitioners authority. Don’t you agree with that?

You actually did by citing the Centurian’s servant as your evidence.

The grace, in the case of this adult, was a healing of an illness.
Jesus teaches us that adults are to be made into disciples, and taught, THEN baptized.

Well, y’know, like, the Centurian’s servant was, like, not an infant.So masters in the Aposolic era could repent for their slaves, whether they were believers or not?

No, that is why the servant must make up his own mind about getting baptized. No assertions were made about the repentance and baptisms of adults.

PS - Christ did not heal the Centurian’s servant because the Centurian was in charge and gave Christ the “go ahead.” Christ healed and delivered any and everyone regardless of anyone elses positions over them.

But in this case, it was not the person who needed healing making a petition, but the one in authority over him. And jesus said “such FAITH I have not seen in Israel”. It was the Centurions FAITH, applied to the needs of the servant, that allowed Jesus to pour out grace.

 

[Atemi]

First of all, the servant in question was undoubtedly an adult, not an infant.

I don’t think the age is relevant here.

Of course it is.

This case specifically deals with an adult. To then say the scenario has bearing on an infant is to include adults in all further reasoning (such as baptism and the necessary repentance).

what is relevant is that Jesus accepted the faith of the petitioner, and poured out his healing on the recipient based on the petitioners faith.

Yes.

Exactly what does not happen in infant baptism.

The faith of the petitioner is totally irrelevant as to the validity of infant baptism.

What you are basically saying here is that one adult can repent and have faith for another adult and thus they can be initially justified before God.

No, that is not what it being said. What is being said is that God will take into account the faith of the petitioner, and pour out His grace on a third party.

And this story is being used as proof that the faith of one person can justify another person before God.

This is not only false in Scripture, it is also false in Catholicism.

You are saying that an adult can repent for another adult and they can be saved.

No. this was not said either.

If we follow this apologetic to its logical conclusion, then there is no other option.

This is not even within the pale of orthodox Christianity as a whole, nevermind that is contradicts RC doctrine.

what is being taught is that Jesus will accept the faith of the person in authority, and will pour out His grace on those for whom that individual petitions.

But the faith of the parents in infant baptism is irrelevant as to the sacrament’s validity. God’s grace to forgive and regenerate a baby is NOT moved by the parent’s faith, but by the sacrement itself…faith or no faith.

• Faith without the sacrament will not justify a baby.
• The sacrament without faith of the parents justifies the baby.

Faith of the parents is moot in the sacrament.

Can we dare say that faith was moot with the healing of the Centurion’s servant?

No way.

…

 

[Atemi]

What was said is that Jesus extended His grace to one under the petitioners authority. Don’t you agree with that?

No.

Definitely not.

The position of the Centurion had no bearing whatsoever, and in any form, on the actions of Christ to heal the servant.

If the Centurion had done the same for his sick superior officer with the same faith, are we to think Christ would have turned him away?

God forbid.

No.

This story has nothing at all to do with the Centurion’s authority, initial justification, babies, or water baptism.

…

 

[guanophore]

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.

…

Are you so hostile toward children that you would not ask the grace of God over them, but even more your pet, friends, or parents?!

Were you abused as a child, and learned to hate childhood? How did an infant get to be of less value than the family pet?!!

 

[guanophore]

There is no baptism without repentance.

I think you are right on this point, Atemi. IF the parents and Godparents do not present themselves in faith, living a live of repentance toward God, the child should not be baptized. This is why the parents make a profession of faith, renounce the devil and his works, and promise to raise the child in the faith.

It is called intercession.

Basic Christianity.

Basic Catholicism! Glad we can agree on SOMETHING!

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.

Exactly. And this is the kind of faith with which parents approach Christ with their infants.

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.

I don’t doubt this, but what the passage shows us is that Jesus was impressed with his understanding of how authority works.

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

This is true, which is why infants can be baptized by persons other than their birth parents.

Again, this is basic Christianity.

Basic Catholicism.

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

…

Since the example was not given as an incidence of repentance, your rejection of it is inappropriate. The passage was given as an example of Jesus pouring out His grace when petitioned to do so by a third party.

 

[guanophore]

There is no baptism without repentance.

I think you are right on this point, Atemi. IF the parents and Godparents do not present themselves in faith, living a live of repentance toward God, the child should not be baptized. This is why the parents make a profession of faith, renounce the devil and his works, and promise to raise the child in the faith.

It is called intercession.

Basic Christianity.

Basic Catholicism! Glad we can agree on SOMETHING!

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.

Exactly. And this is the kind of faith with which parents approach Christ with their infants.

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.

I don’t doubt this, but what the passage shows us is that Jesus was impressed with his understanding of how authority works.

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

This is true, which is why infants can be baptized by persons other than their birth parents.

Again, this is basic Christianity.

Basic Catholicism.

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

…

Since the example was not given as an incidence of repentance, your rejection of it is inappropriate. The passage was given as an example of Jesus pouring out His grace when petitioned to do so by a third party.

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

well, it doesn’t say one way or the other. What we DO know is that he came in faith, interceded on behalf of the servant, and Jesus’ grace was poured out on theServant, who could not ask on his own behalf.

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

I think we can assume he was not an infant. However, I am not sure we can assume he was not baptized. We don’t know that. He may have been.

Matt 3:5-6
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

He may have been one of the “all”.

There is nothing there to support infant baptism.

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

Sorry.

…

No need to feel sorry for us! We can see it without any stretch, although I do admit stretching is good for the joints.

What we see support for in this scripture is that Jesus will pour out his grace on a third party, based on the faith of the petitioner. To us, this is what happens in infant baptism.

Luke 11:13
13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

We believe that God wants to pour out His HS, and when we ask in faith on behalf of our loved ones, especially the infants, He does so.

 

[maurin]

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.

…

Of course you have, there is no bout a doubt it. Horrible translations do exist.

Bible, publisher, editor and Catholic Imprimatur please?

 

[maurin]

I think you are right on this point, Atemi. IF the parents and Godparents do not present themselves in faith, living a live of repentance toward God, the child should not be baptized. This is why the parents make a profession of faith, renounce the devil and his works, and promise to raise the child in the faith.

Basic Catholicism! Glad we can agree on SOMETHING!

Exactly. And this is the kind of faith with which parents approach Christ with their infants.

I don’t doubt this, but what the passage shows us is that Jesus was impressed with his understanding of how authority works.

This is true, which is why infants can be baptized by persons other than their birth parents.

Basic Catholicism.

Since the example was not given as an incidence of repentance, your rejection of it is inappropriate. The passage was given as an example of Jesus pouring out His grace when petitioned to do so by a third party.

well, it doesn’t say one way or the other. What we DO know is that he came in faith, interceded on behalf of the servant, and Jesus’ grace was poured out on theServant, who could not ask on his own behalf.

I think we can assume he was not an infant. However, I am not sure we can assume he was not baptized. We don’t know that. He may have been.

Matt 3:5-6
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

He may have been one of the “all”.

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

Sorry.

No need to feel sorry for us! We can see it without any stretch, although I do admit stretching is good for the joints.

What we see support for in this scripture is that Jesus will pour out his grace on a third party, based on the faith of the petitioner. To us, this is what happens in infant baptism.

Luke 11:13
13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

We believe that God wants to pour out His HS, and when we ask in faith on behalf of our loved ones, especially the infants, He does so.

Excellent explanation, guanophore. Thank you for this!!!

 

[TobyLue]

It has been stated that the Early Church didn’t do any infant baptism because it was not taught by the Apostles, yet, I have seen time and time again quotes by the ECF’s stating the need for infant baptism, but I have as yet to see any quote from an ECF strongly urging NO INFANT BAPTISM. Why is that? It was also stated that if infant baptism was so important why is there no mention of it in the bible. Remember, all of these practices came years, and years** before the Bible was compiled. Please go back and read the dates of those ECF’s quotes. It was understood universally by the Church so there were no arguments about baptizing infants. When the Bible was compiled some 400+ years after Christianity started, baptizing infant was correct teaching.
Think again, do you all think that the Church allowed a contradiction, from what was taught by the Apostles, to be canonized?
Did the Church overlook the fact that the words “Baptize infants” was not in the Canonized Bible?
Was the Church full of dolts back then? You gotta be kidding me!!!
Many of the ECF’s were taught by the Apostles. Are we to believe that these ECF’s misunderstood the Apostles and it wasn’t until some 1500+ years later those that broke away from the CC got it correct? ** Please explain. **
There is this that I didn’t see quoted from St. Augustine that says:
“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]). Notice what it says in bold. I will repeat it in case some don’t see it “, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority”. Notice the date of 400 AD; this was before the Bible was canonized.
Now some state that they will not believe infant baptism because the words “baptize infants” is not found specifically in scripture. Using that same logic, we do not see specifically the word “Trinity” so then we have no choice but to stop believing in the Trinity. (Thats JW teaching) Taking that one step further, we do not find the word “Bible” in the Bible, so we have no choice but to stop believing in the Bible. Taking that another step, we do not find a command by Jesus saying “Write the Bible which will be the Word of God”, so then we have no choice but to stop believing that the Bible is the Word of God.
Might as well throw away all our bibles since they are false and switch to the Koran. Huh?

So, please explain those of you that do not believe in infant baptism, why you believe that the Bible is the Word of God since those words are nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Thanks and God Bless.

 

[savedsinner]

We believe that infants can be baptized, because baptism conveys God grace, and we receive the Holy Spirit. As an adult, we would believe and then be baptized, but you don’t have to be able to believe at the time of baptism. It is important that you are raised in the faith, after you are baptized as an infant.

Look at the story of Paul.

He did not come to believe and then accept the Lord as his personal Lord and savior, then decide to be baptized as a sign of his commitment to Jesus.

Paul was against the church, and did not believe in Jesus when he was knocked down to the ground. He was led blind to a home where he was baptized. I don’t think that Paul would have come to a belief in Jesus until at the earliest he had received his sight back.

Acts 9:17-18
So Anani’as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,

This passage states that Paul would gain his sight, and then receive the Holy Spirit.
We see that the scales fell from his eyes (regaining his sight) and then was baptized (where he received the Holy Spirit).

Acts 9:19-20
For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus. And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, “He is the Son of God.”

After he received the Holy Spirit, he began to proclaim Jesus, that is, he came to a belief.

If this is the case for Paul, then it could also be true for infants.

 

[SFLCatholic]

Are we to believe that these ECF’s misunderstood the Apostles and it wasn’t until some 1500+ years later those that broke away from the CC got it correct? **Please explain. **

Oh Martin Luther great and mighty one, divine seer of all, I bow down before you! :bowdown:

That’s pretty much how I see it.

I know you weren’t looking for an explantion from me. But I couldn’t resist!

 

[guanophore]

This is problematic as the NT record covers a time period of about 60 years after the church was born. That leaves tons of convert babies.

You may be right. Since babies are small, it would take a lot of them to make a ton,but it is very possible!

Yet nowhere do we ever find a baby being baptised in all 260+ chapters of the NT.

Well…we see it differently!

Not only that, but nowhere are new believers even instructed to water baptise their babies.

Since all the first converts were Jews, this would go without saying, since they understood that a promise to a “household” included children, and that the head of the household spoke for everyone.

Of the thousands recorded as being water baptised, every one of them was a believer…or for a few it was heavily implied (Lydia’s household).

One does not preclude the other. The Catholic Church practices believers baptism, as well as infant baptism.

That testimony of the Holy Spirit should be more than enough: many thousands of believers recorded as baptised, and not one infant ever recorded as baptised…in over a 60 year record.

We indeed accept the testimony of the HS, working through the Church. We understand that Spirit to teach us that baptism replaces circumcision as the initiation rite into the new covenant.

That is what we see in ***some*** early Christian writings after the Apostolic era. What we must not forget is that not all Christians were baptising their infants...even Saints...nor was there any very early doctrine of the church that all babies were to be baptised.

This is important as it clarifies that the specific command to baptise infants did not come from the Apostles. If it did, it was somehow lost by the church for centuries.

…

This is an erroneous conclusion, Atemi. However, you are right that it was not a doctrine that all babies were to be baptized, but a practice. And permitting this practice is not the same as commanding it.

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?

…

To demonstrate to you that the Church did not “lose” this teachiing from the Apostles. You have not responded to what the Fathers wrote. Do you not agree that these passages reflect that infants were routinely baptized?

 

[guanophore]

Christ never commanded that babies be baptised and you did not provide any citation where He did.

If you can produce one, I will obey.

,

Atemi, you are already out of order, because you have rejected the Authority that Christ placed over His Church through the Apostles.

Heb 13:17

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

 

[guanophore]

No eight day old can “Repent, Rise, or Call on the name of the Lord”.
Repentence is one of the most important commands given to us from our Lord, without it there is no forgivness.

Where in this passage to we see the paralytic repenting? We don’t even know that he could speak at all!

Mark 2:3-5
3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. 5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”

Notice how Jesus grants forgiveness based on the companions’ faith, just as He does in baptism through the faith of the infants’ parents.

 

[guanophore]

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.

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.

…

Only in your own mind, Atemi. Catholics believe that, without faith, it is impossible to please God. We approach all the sacraments in faith, and that is how the grace of them is applied to us. Speaking about the validity of the sacrament is what has no bearing here. The sacrament is not offered to those outside the faith!

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

There is another rite that is used with infant girls.

Secondly, circumcision was not salvific and never was.

No, being part of the Covenant was what saved. Circumcusion was just part of entering that covenant.

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

Where does it say that in your bible? Where does it state there were no children, or infants?

And they still were not baptising infants.

I still have not seen your response to the writings of the early fathers about infant baptism.

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

Or maybe because it was permitted?

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.

I am glad that you don’t advocate the baptism of dogs. I found that comparison very distressing. We are to baptize disciples. We are to make disciples out of the children. We are to bring the children to Jesus. We are told that Jesus pours out his Graces based on the faith of others.

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

Fortunately we have the Apostolic Succession to fill in any blanks, so that we don’t have to be in doubt.

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

…

Yes, certainly later in the book of Acts, for sure.

 

[heisenburg]

Not meant as a stumper, just a question…

I know there are those that for some reason do not believe that the faith/requests/ etc of one can affect another… even though the bible is clear on this…

But, if infant baptism is so wrong… what happens to a baby that dies of SIDS…

Using general protestant understanding…

1. We are born sinners, with the stain of sin completely on us and covering us. We are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners.
2. The only way to remove this state is by a true profession of Faith

now… this does not apply to all Denoms, but to those that do not believe in infant Baptism,

If a child dies of SIDS… he was never able to make that profession. Without the profession, he is by normal protestant understanding condemned.

It doesn’t matter if it was an 8 day old or not… He is still a sinner, and thus separated from Christ

Now, a common comeback is that, well, God probably would afford the Child the Grace needed, even though the child is incapable of asking for that Grace.

(However, some strict adherents to Faith alone have said that child would still be condemned, though this is a rare belief)

In essence, that is the what infant baptism is…

Bestowing on an infant the Grace of God, even though he cannot ask for it…

So… what is so wrong with parents asking God to bestow that Grace on the child?

There is ample evidence in the bible where People can affect the state of others. (otherwise no need for intercessory prayer)
There is ample evidence in the bible that Baptism is Required (Other wise the bible wouldn’t repeatedly say things like 'Baptism now saves you, or Go forth, baptizing the nations in the Name of the Father Son and Holy spirit)

So… if we can have an affect on others… then

1. it is OK to ask God to bestow his Grace on an Infant as this is the same logic behind intercessory prayer, Centurion, etc
2. If Baptism is required to bestow that Grace (something I know that is disputed by protestants) then this would mean that for that grace to be bestowed, the infant must also be baptized as well.

But what do I know… I’m just reading the bible

that being said… this thread is just going in circles…

Have fun, don’t get too dizzy

May each of you be blessed in Christ

 

[heisenburg]

God is Loving…

Not legalistic…

saying God will not bestow that grace because he is an infant is legalistic

Saying God will shows him as Loving…

 

[guanophore]

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

Hello?

…

No, it is The Holy Spirit, acting through the sacrament, that effects the sanctifying grace in baptism. But that sacrament is approached only through the faith of the parents. The church will not baptize and infant unless the parents promise to raise the child in the faith.

 

[agangbern]

Many have the notion that baptism refers alone to the type performed by John the Baptist. It is not. In fact Jesus did not perform to others that type of baptism (John 4:2), and it was not sufficient (Acts 19:2-6) In 1 Cor 10:1-2, all the Israelites were baptized in the cloud and in the sea. The Israelites at that time had children with them. (Exodus 12:37)
Circumcision was also an equivalent of baptism in the time of Jesus. It was an event wherein the child is officially given his name. Jesus received it when he was simply eight days old. (Luke 2:21)