T
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
Right away…we pray for the infant, dedicate the infant to God, take the infant to Church…have the infant blessed by the priest…and where does it say or limit that teaching have to start later? That teaching have to be oral teaching?
Nurturing and bringing an infant in the faith is teaching also.
Do you have any rancor or hatred for this kind of rearing of children?
P
pablope
Guest
REally…can you point to sources or records that survived the roman persecution? Are you sure the church, which was on the run for their lives, would keep such records?
And since you cannot agree with infant baptism…how do you know you are correct and the rest of the Christian world who baptize babies are wrong?
Are you playing God again that you can judge who is wrong and who is not?
D
DebChris
Guest
You can also go to historical context.
All members of the household, free and slave alike, were expected to worship the same gods as the head of the household. That means that every member of the household, including infants, would have been baptized when the head of the household converted to the Way.
Circumcision as a sign of the everlasting covenant between God and Abraham’s descendents is discussed in Genesis 17. Every male was circumcised at eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one brought with your money from any foreigner who is not your offspring. Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant in your flesh be an everlasting covenant.
With Baptism, we become the Lord’s and are marked with an indelible sign of His grace.
If we are willing to have our young children and infants vacinated against deadly diseases, why wouldn’t we have them also protected by God’s grace against the prowling lion seeking the ruin of souls?
As Catholics, we complete the initiation process into the Church with the Sacrament of Confirmation when we affirm the Faith that we received in infancy.
All members of the household, free and slave alike, were expected to worship the same gods as the head of the household. That means that every member of the household, including infants, would have been baptized when the head of the household converted to the Way.
Circumcision as a sign of the everlasting covenant between God and Abraham’s descendents is discussed in Genesis 17. Every male was circumcised at eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one brought with your money from any foreigner who is not your offspring. Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant in your flesh be an everlasting covenant.
With Baptism, we become the Lord’s and are marked with an indelible sign of His grace.
If we are willing to have our young children and infants vacinated against deadly diseases, why wouldn’t we have them also protected by God’s grace against the prowling lion seeking the ruin of souls?
As Catholics, we complete the initiation process into the Church with the Sacrament of Confirmation when we affirm the Faith that we received in infancy.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I want to use tradition as a fact to support infant baptism. Every Church that existed in the First Millennium, the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, all of them baptized infants. Clearly this is what has been taught from day one.
Teaching of children starts from the very beginning. Are you a parent? If you are a parent you should know that. I don’t let my kids be whatever they want and then start forming them to be Christians when they are 13. That is actually the worst possible time, kids never listen to their parents at this age. My son is 2.75 years old, he already knows 3 prayers by heart (Lord’s Prayer, Angel of God, and Grace Before Meals). He knows how to venerate icons, he receives Communion. he know the Sign of the Cross, and he recognizes icons of Jesus as Jesus. This includes anyone who is vested (priests after all are icons of Christ
). He’s called several priests and our bishop as Jesus 
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
How do churches that do not perform infant baptisms view infants as far as salvation? Also, do they perform any other sacraments/ordinances for them? As a Latter-day Saint, we perform baby blessings (a sacred ordinance performed by the priesthood, where the child is blessed by the power of God), and we also believe that infants are saved by the atonement of Christ, and are not in danger of punishment, Hell, etc. I’m wondering how other churches that do not practice infant baptism view the state of the infant.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Porknpie, I’m not really understanding your argument:
You said:
To which you responded:
You said:
To which Radical responded:
To which you responded:
Then Radical:
And finally you:
But your last response didn’t address Radical’s argument, so I’m interested in your view. Essentially, you are saying that those that reject infant baptism and the argument of “whole households” as relevant to infant baptism are ignoring the simple English definition of “whole” (which you provided) meaning everyone. Yet, you did exactly that in your response to Radical. He showed that the scripture teaches that the whole household came to believe. Meaning, according to you in your OP, “everyone”. When questioned about this, you replied that this is an example of infants being baptized through the belief of the parents. But where does it say that in the passage? It says that the “whole” (i.e. everyone) household believed. If these households included infants, as you seem to be arguing, and whole means “everyone”, then it isn’t an example of infants being baptized through the belief of the parents, but an example of the infants believing, along with the adults. That is what Radical is demonstrating, but your last response did not engage that argument. I’d be interested in your thoughts on that.
C
cajunhillbilly
Guest
Most Baptist and fundamentalist churches that practice believer’s baptism also pratice infant dedication, where the parents dedicate themselves to bringing the child up in the faith. Since I see that as part of infant baptism, I always think to myself “Why do they not include baptism?” Clearly a man made tradition, which they claim not to follow.
C
cajunhillbilly
Guest
“all the quotes below are before the bible was written.” Not true. The New Testament was written in the first century. The last book of the Bible, Revelation, was written no later than 90 something AD. So all those quotes are from AFTER the time the Bible was written. Now they are from before the time that the Church finally recognized which books were to be included in the New Testament, but that is a different subject. By the way, I believe in infant baptism.
X
x1980x
Guest
How do we know there were infants in these households? Does every single household have an infant? An explanation I have heard is that there simply were no infants in those households and that everyone there happened to be old enough. If there were infants, then the scriptures might have said, “he and all the members of his household who understood were baptized”
To make a stupid analogy, many islands have military bases on them. If John is not allowed to live on the same island as a military base but we are nonetheless told that he moved to an island, wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that the island he actually moved to is one of those islands that doesn’t have a military base on it?
It doesn’t say that directly anywhere. The actual examples given in the bible are all adults or at least children who understand what they are getting into. When we say that Mennonites baptize only adults, we mean that we baptize only those who are old enough to profess belief and a desire. There’s no “magic age 18” where you become eligible. If you are 10 and can satisfy the church that you understand and accept Jesus independently of your parents’ will, you may be baptized. Nowhere does it actually say, “don’t baptize infants”, but the bible also doesn’t say, “don’t smoke cigarettes” either. Does that mean we should?
P
Porknpie
Guest
LivingW - can infants believe? If no, there is a misunderstanding on Radical’s part on the either the word “whole” or “household”. “Whole households” were baptized. Where does scripture, in these words or other, exclude infants? This is what the Church believed before the bible was written and the text can be understood in light of this Tradition. Radical implied, suggested or proposed a possibility, that the apostles mistakenly created a false doctrine.
This is a “Mormon Thought” type…that somehow the apostles, all 12 of them, lost the true teaching from Christ or an equal error: that Christ was a poor teacher. Infant baptism is found no where in the early Church. No controversy until after 1,600.
Scripture on infant baptism can be understood through the writers of the early church. I provided a lot of quotes showing the belief on infant baptism in the church. Circumcision occurred at day 8 in the OT, in the NT, the New Covenant, where Baptism is required for salvation, no one would have denied God’s saving grace to an infant. The heart of the issue: turning away from God’s established Church on earth and the authority that he gave that Church to understand and interpret scripture…following a man-made theology created 1,600+ years later. As 1 Timothy 3 says…“the Pillar and Foundation of Truth is the Church”. There was no church believing in a believers, delayed baptism until the 1,600’s at the earliest.
So can the belief of the parent provide the stand in for the belief of the infant in baptism. Yes. The Church has believed so since the beginning. Similarly, as I provided other scripture…one can be saved through the faith of another and one can be made Holy through the faith of another.
Why would one even consider the (im?)possibility that none of the households had infants or very young children? If even one had an infant, then the understanding of “household” remains. The clear sense of the text is all members of households, including the very young, were baptized.
Does it give examples of “only adults and children who understand” should be Baptized?
I don’t see how denying the sacrament of Baptism is the same as making a reasonable health choice.
Jon
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
So are you saying that infants can make a rational choice to believe something, i.e. to believe in Christ?
And no, Radical did not imply, suggest, or propose a possibility that the apostles mistakenly created a false doctrine.
Firstly, Radical made this statement (who is not a Latter-day Saint), not me. Secondly, I don’t agree with either premise anyway.
I don’t think you’re getting the question we are posing to you. If you look at my post that quoted the progression of the discussion between you and Radical, you would say that, in response to the question of whether infants came to believe when the scripture states that the whole household came to believe (and following your logic of the usage of “whole”, this would have to include infants, who may or may not have been in the household in question), you stated that this was an example of infants being baptized based on the belief of the parents. It is that specific issue that we are addressing, not circumcision or anything else. So when you said this, it seemed as if you were implying that in this instance, “whole” did not mean “everyone”, since you said it was an example of infants coming to baptism based on the belief of the parents (not, presumably, their own belief as an infant).
If you could clarify the logical progression of that specific argument, it would be great.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Of course not…this is why they are baptised through the faith of their parents. Just like scripture says one can be saved through another’s faith and can be made Holy through another (don’t Mormon’s believe the living can baptize the dead?)
If it’s raining out and my clothes are all wet, are you going to tell me it’s sunny out? Seriously, his words clearly imply or propose a theory that infant baptism was initiated in error by the apostles.
I’ve been consistent… “Whole” means everyone…infants, males, females, under 6’ tall, over 6’ tall. Infants are included in “whole” and included in “household”. To believe otherwise is to believe a theology started by man beginning in the 1,600’s.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Ok thank you. So we agree that infants cannot make a rational choice to believe.
Also, as far as the Latter-day Saint practice of baptizing the dead, while it is certainly an act of faith on the part of the living individual performing the ordinance for the deceased, we believe that, just like in this life, the deceased person must exercise their own faith and choose to accept, or reject, that baptism (we don’t believe that baptism for the dead automatically baptizes that person). So it is not analogous to infant baptism where the faith of the parents is applied.
I’ll allow him to speak, but I’m pretty sure he is not claiming at all that the apostles started infant baptism in the first place. The quote of his that you supplied (which clearly says “if” they started it) shows that you can reasonably infer that he believes that the apostles did not start infant baptism, so it couldn’t have been an error, since they didn’t start it.
Ok great, and that is the entire point of the argument here. You say that “whole” means everyone, so when it says that the “whole household” was baptized, that means “everyone”, including infants.
Yet, the scripture also says that the “whole household” believed. By the same logic, that would mean “everyone”, including infants. Yet you said that infants are not capable of making a rational choice to believe, and you also said that the faith of the parents applies to the infant. But the scripture said that the whole household believed, right? So you’re not applying the same standard usage of “whole” in both cases, as you’re making an exception for infants, in the case of belief, since they are not capable of it. That is the issue Radical was bringing up, and which I see as an inconsistency in your application of “whole” to the household.
D
DebChris
Guest
The godparents make the decision for the infant. They further take the responsibility to teach the faith to the child.
Even adults who are baptized do not come into the Church with full knowledge of the teachings of Christ. We find in Acts 2:42 that the first converts “devoted themselves to the teachings of the Apostles.”
When a child comes into a family, it becomes a part of the household. He or she learns from the members of the household. They learn the prayers and reverance in the same way that the child would also learn about the rules within the household. They are included in the activities of the household.
Again, the Sacraments leave an indelible mark on the child. The Holy Spirit dwelling within the child is there, along with the parents, to guide and protect from entering into sin. The Sacraments are more than an outward sign of an inner disposition. They are an outward sign of God’s grace at work within the person who who has received them.
At the age of reason, the child receives the Eucharist for the first time, continuing his or her growth in Faith. As the child reaches discernment, the initiation process is completed with the Sacrament of Confirmation.
Growth in faith does not end there, but continues for a lifetime.
Even adults who are baptized do not come into the Church with full knowledge of the teachings of Christ. We find in Acts 2:42 that the first converts “devoted themselves to the teachings of the Apostles.”
When a child comes into a family, it becomes a part of the household. He or she learns from the members of the household. They learn the prayers and reverance in the same way that the child would also learn about the rules within the household. They are included in the activities of the household.
Again, the Sacraments leave an indelible mark on the child. The Holy Spirit dwelling within the child is there, along with the parents, to guide and protect from entering into sin. The Sacraments are more than an outward sign of an inner disposition. They are an outward sign of God’s grace at work within the person who who has received them.
At the age of reason, the child receives the Eucharist for the first time, continuing his or her growth in Faith. As the child reaches discernment, the initiation process is completed with the Sacrament of Confirmation.
Growth in faith does not end there, but continues for a lifetime.
P
pablope
Guest
Ture…but you are forgetting that all those writings could be put together…to have one comprehensive canon because of the Roman persecution…which sought to destroy the writings also, that is why none of the originals are left.
So it would be hard for one area to have all the writings, much less, know of the existence or even have a copy of each individual NT writing. It was all by word of mouth and tradition, even though the individual NT books have been written.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Living - sorry if I didn’t catch this…,DebChris stated it well above. Other ways of thinking about this subject:
- some (many) Protestants believe: “One Must Have Faith in Christ for Salvation”. This statement then excludes infants and children up to the age of reason. So God will condemn infants and children who die to hell? Is that the all loving God?
- The all loving God is this: the Lord said “Bring the Children to me”. Why would we withhold the saving grace of baptism from infants…necessary for salvation? God brought infants into his OT covenant through circumcision…in the NT, he does so with infants again through baptism.
- Again…there is no bible verse that says to delay baptism to the age of reason. None.
- However, from my earlier post, there are many examples of the early church saying to baptise infants. The apostles did not “make this up”. They were taught by Jesus himself, with the apostles passing down this teaching to their descendants. Eventually, this oral Tradition was put into writing…and that writing was bound into what is your KJV bible. The issue, beginning only after year 1,600 is one of interpretation.
- Status