The Validity of Infant Baptism

[Eden]

Bibleapologist has invited me to a public debate about the validity of infant baptism. So, I am starting this thread. The debate began in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1729361#post1729361

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Is the debate here or there?
Anyway dont forget Acts 2:38-39 and Col 2:11-12

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

…I have to sign up to be a member of your forums to participate? I’d like to debate the validity of infant baptism, but I have moral reservations about participating in any kind of discussion that involves promoting your website. I don’t know if you noticed this, but when I quote your posts, I always delete the links to your website.

I can appreciate you conviction… I would never endorse any of the teachings of Catholicism that I believe are heretical, so I respect your position on that.

But, I have linked to catholic.com, and the forums and have encouraged others to come here… not for the purpose of endorsing any catholic teaching, but to teach the truth by exposing the antithesis. Catholic answers is a great antithesis to biblical teaching.

My challenge to you for debate was not ruse to get you to join my forums… but to ask you to join my forums is only to give us a public arena with no interferance to debate the subject… where I can be sure we will be moderated. If you truly felt you had a position worth sharing with the poor ignoble baptists… you would view it as a mission field. That is how I view the Catholic Forums… are you afraid?

The reason is, I have always chosen not to participate in any kind of personal promotion of your website of errors. If you would like to begin a new thread about the validity of infant baptism on this site, which we have both agreed to join, I’m in. Otherwise, no, I won’t participate on your forum. I don’t “do” anti-Catholic sites. If you’d like to invite anyone to this site to participate as a voice for your position, please do.

Again, I will respect your conviction… but, if you are that concerned about the baptist leavening infiltrating your mind you probably shouldn’t be discussing these issues with me.

I’ll be waiting…

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[Eden]

I trust that if you are genuinely interested in debunking the validity of infant baptism, you will debate the topic here at CA, where it all began.

I left the thread open for you to decide how you would like to direct the conversation since this “public debate” was at your request. I’ll give you one more opportunity to open the debate, but if you decline, I’ll commence my position.

 

[Santos]

Jesus requires baptism for entering heaven (Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16). St. Paul tells us that all are born with Adam’s sin and thus need baptism (Rom 5:18-19). Jesus makes clear that children are not to be kept away from Him (Mk 10:14). The Apostles baptized entire households (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor 1:16). This would include infants. No Bible passage prohibits infant baptism.

The early Church Fathers were clear that the baptizing of infants was a practice that came from the Apostles themselves. That infants lack the use of reason does not prevent them from becoming part of the New Covenant through baptism. In the Old Testament, a child became part of the Old Covenant through circumcision. This was done eight days after birth, long before the child could choose for himself whether or not to be part of the Chosen People. Just as parents in the Old Testament supplied the decision for the child’s circumcision until he could confirm this decision at the age of reason, so in the New Testament parents stand in for the child at his baptism until he can confirm this decision at the age of reason.

St. Hippolytus of Rome (215 AD) “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.” The Apostolic Tradition 21.

Origen (post 244 AD): “the Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants.” Commentary on Romans 5, 9.

In 252 AD, the council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants must wait until the eighth day after birth to be baptized, as was the case with circumcision. St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 64 (59), 2.

The Bible commands following Apostolic Traditions and Teachings (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:6) If anyone preaches a gospel other than the one received from the apostles, let that one be accursed (Galatians 1:6)!

God Bless

 

[levi86]

St. Hippolytus of Rome (215 AD) “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.” The Apostolic Tradition 21.

Origen (post 244 AD): “the Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants.” Commentary on Romans 5, 9.

In 252 AD, the council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants must wait until the eighth day after birth to be baptized, as was the case with circumcision. St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 64 (59), 2.

And also…

“And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years…” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

“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).

“Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?” Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).

“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).

“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord.” Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

 

[bibleapologist]

I trust that if you are genuinely interested in debunking the validity of infant baptism, you will debate the topic here at CA, where it all began.

I left the thread open for you to decide how you would like to direct the conversation since this “public debate” was at your request. I’ll give you one more opportunity to open the debate, but if you decline, I’ll commence my position.

As you can see… any debate on this thread, or any other on CAF will eventually progress into the same tag-team debating style that has taken place on the other twenty or so threads where I have engaged in debating 10 to 20 catholics at the same time.

Although I don’t have any reservations with debating 20 Catholics at the same time, that type of debate does not allow for a clear and concise conveyance of the truth of either side.

I have offered and facilitated a public forum where it is impossible for anyone else to post, and a moderator will be assigned to our debate. I have offered some parameters in my challenge to you… and that particular forum is open for you to respond with your own suggestions.

I can understand your position that you don’t feel comfortable participating in my forums, and that’s ok. I also understand that you will post your position here if I fail to engage in debate. I will also post my position on my forums while taking into consideration all of your comments.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[Eden]

Although I don’t have any reservations with debating 20 Catholics at the same time, that type of debate does not allow for a clear and concise conveyance of the truth of either side.

What exactly is this “truth”, this “truth” which bases itself on the misrepresentation of Catholic teaching? This is what Baptist truth is? I don’t know how you can call any debate truthful that is built upon your misrepresentations of Church teaching. Catholics don’t need to hide from or distort teachings of any other faith because we are the only Christian faith to teach without error. As the Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[jemfinch]

We’ve already been through this.

Rest assured, we’ve debated “bibleapologist.” All his arguments have been adequately refuted and he’s barely scratched the surface of the arguments we’ve presented. When we present arguments against his, he replies with red herrings and/or ignores the most difficult of the arguments we present.

In other words, the only people who would ever consider John to have won a “public debate” are those who subscribe to his ideology already.

Jeremy

 

[Tom]

www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

John,
I tried to register on the site but was not successful. From the number of posts (or lack thereof) compared to the number of hits, I think the problem is frequent, unless there are really a lot of lurkers. I have sent an e-mail, perhaps I will be able to participate at your site.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

We’ve already been through this.

Rest assured, we’ve debated “bibleapologist.” All his arguments have been adequately refuted and he’s barely scratched the surface of the arguments we’ve presented. When we present arguments against his, he replies with red herrings and/or ignores the most difficult of the arguments we present.

In other words, the only people who would ever consider John to have won a “public debate” are those who subscribe to his ideology already.

Jeremy

I think that John is starting to see some of the imperfections in the “faith alone” theology. He’s a seeker of the Truth. Give him time, he’ll come home.

 

[Eden]

www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

John,
I tried to register on the site but was not successful. From the number of posts (or lack thereof) compared to the number of hits, I think the problem is frequent, unless there are really a lot of lurkers. I have sent an e-mail, perhaps I will be able to participate at your site.

That’s interesting. It sounds like he is possibly screening forum members. Hmm. Why would that be?

 

[Redbandito]

I, for one, would love to debate ANYTHING on baptism with a Baptist. The problem is that the Baptist won’t debate baptism, but rather will attempt to push sola fide. If sola fide is correct, then of course, baptism is not necessary. And if baptism is not necessary, the Baptist will tell you that it is merely a symbol of a believer’s faith. If this is the case, then it would seem odd to believe in infant baptism. Unfortunately for the Baptist, this approach to proving the “validity of infant baptism” is backward. For starters, it shifts the focus to a completely different, albeit not unrelated, topic. The bottom line is this…the Scripture states in EXPLICIT terms that baptism is necessary for our salvation (most explicitly in 1 Pet 3:21 and Jn 3:5). If a Baptist would like to debate the merits of these verses, fine. If they want to debate sola fide, there is already a thread on the topic. Which one is it for you BA? Are you going to tell us why the Scripture can’t mean baptism is necessary for our salvation when it says so explicitly? Or, do you have Scriptures that refer to the baptism of Christ as a symbol? If so, I would love to hear about these.

 

[mikeledes]

I, for one, would love to debate ANYTHING on baptism with a Baptist. The problem is that the Baptist won’t debate baptism, but rather will attempt to push sola fide. If sola fide is correct, then of course, baptism is not necessary. And if baptism is not necessary, the Baptist will tell you that it is merely a symbol of a believer’s faith. If this is the case, then it would seem odd to believe in infant baptism. Unfortunately for the Baptist, this approach to proving the “validity of infant baptism” is backward. For starters, it shifts the focus to a completely different, albeit not unrelated, topic. The bottom line is this…the Scripture states in EXPLICIT terms that baptism is necessary for our salvation (most explicitly in 1 Pet 3:21 and Jn 3:5). If a Baptist would like to debate the merits of these verses, fine. If they want to debate sola fide, there is already a thread on the topic. Which one is it for you BA? Are you going to tell us why the Scripture can’t mean baptism is necessary for our salvation when it says so explicitly? Or, do you have Scriptures that refer to the baptism of Christ as a symbol? If so, I would love to hear about these.

Except for Martin Luther and the Luthern Church. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Lutheranism believes in infant baptism and baptismal rgeneration.

God bless,
Michael

 

[Redbandito]

Except for Martin Luther and the Luthern Church. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Lutheranism believes in infant baptism and baptismal rgeneration.

God bless,
Michael

True Mike! I was only discussing Baptists. Lutherans and even Calvinists view baptism differently than a Baptist. But then, I guess that doesn’t really come as a shock to anyone.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

…the Scripture states in EXPLICIT terms that baptism is necessary for our salvation (most explicitly in 1 Pet 3:21 and Jn 3:5). If a Baptist would like to debate the merits of these verses, fine.

Greetings, it has been about 10 or 11 months since I commented - but have more “clarifing” questions than outright proof of a position.

First off, In Jn 3:5; “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Is it the Catholic position that these two “events” (born of water AND of the Spirit) are one event (both happening at the same time), or two events (separate and both required to enter into the Kingdom of God? (i.e second one being confirmation?)

Thanks and I look forward to your reponse.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Greetings, Thanks and I look forward to your reponse.

Actually, I meant “any” response.

 

[Redbandito]

Greetings, it has been about 10 or 11 months since I commented - but have more “clarifing” questions than outright proof of a position.

First off, In Jn 3:5; “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Is it the Catholic position that these two “events” (born of water AND of the Spirit) are one event (both happening at the same time), or two events (separate and both required to enter into the Kingdom of God? (i.e second one being confirmation?)

Thanks and I look forward to your reponse.

Well, I am not aware of any infallible exegesis on the verse. However, it is the Catholic position on baptism that, “**The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” *God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments” ***(CCC, 1257).

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1257.htm

And also, “John’s baptism was for repentance; baptism in water and the Spirit will be a new birth” (CCC, 720).

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/720.htm

In other words, the Catholic position is that in being “buried with him through (the water in) baptism,” that through the Spirit infused into us at this time, “we too may live a new life” (Rom 6:4- my emphasis added). Through the water of baptism, the Holy Spirit is infused into our souls. And therefore, we are “born again,” (Jn 3:3) “adopted sons,” (Rom 8:15) and “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4).

 

[Melchior]

Except for Martin Luther and the Luthern Church. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Lutheranism believes in infant baptism and baptismal rgeneration.

God bless,
Michael

As do a good chunk of Anglicans.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

In other words, the Catholic position is that in being “buried with him through (the water in) baptism,” that through the Spirit infused into us at this time, “we too may live a new life” (Rom 6:4- my emphasis added). Through the water of baptism, the Holy Spirit is infused into our souls. And therefore, we are “born again,” (Jn 3:3) “adopted sons,” (Rom 8:15) and “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4).

Hello Redbandito, thank you for the response. So just to clarify, “…a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he …” is referring to “ONE” event/happening. The reason I ask and/or seek clarification is I recall on another thread that “born of water” meant “baptism” and “born of the spirt” meant Confirmation. However, I may be wrong as the thread was like 1 yr. ago or something. Anyone else have an answer/opinion? One event or two?