Would you consider this valid defense of infant baptism?

[JayMekk]

I came across this and I thought it was a very interstering argument.

1. It is interesting to think about the fact that Peter is using the analogy of Noah’s Flood to relate to baptism. The only person we ever read about having believed is Noah (Genesis 6:8). And yet God makes covenant with Noah and his family (Genesis 6:18).

Now perhaps for some this will not hold water (pun intended!) but it seems clear that: i. Noah was a believer ii. on the basis of his faith God saved (‘baptized’) his family (even though all were old enough to make a profession of faith) iii. Peter compares this flood to the baptism of today. iv. baptism is not given based upon anything we have done but because of God’s promise as the rest of the Bible teaches.

Questions? Comments? Criticisms?

 

[kkollwitz]

Suits me. The Bible is full of examples of God saving though intercession; which is what parents do at their children’s Baptism: intercede.

 

[Jimdandy]

Yes, you are on the right track
Noah, his wife and his 3 sons & their wives enter the ark and go through the flood.

Ark- ‘type’ of Church
Flood-‘type’ of baptism
Dove w/olive tree branch-earth is habitable after flood
Dove (the Holy Spirit) descends on Jesus at His baptism and remains with Him.(a place where God can dwell- the wind that blew over the earth-)

 

[animalis]

James speaking prior of the faith of Abraham said, “Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?” (Jas 2:22) St. Paul speaks of Abraham as a father in faith (Rom 4:9, 12, 16; Gal 3: 7-9, Heb 11:17). St. Luke does the same (Acts 7:2, Lk 16:24).

Noah and Abraham were men of covenants. Noah of the Nations, Abraham of the People of God, if only you consider the New covenant in Jesus Christ. And that is were baptism resides. Apollo was concerned only about St. John the Bapist in his early years, “Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus.” (Acts 19:4)

God did not reveal baptism to Noah. It was a punishment, that in some way God repented. Baptism is not an act in which God promised he would not do to the people again. St. Peter speaks of the flood of Noah as a ‘type’ and it is mysterious and there is a necessary component. In itself the thing loses the meaning in which Christ and his Spirit working in the Catholic Church give the thing.

No where in the bible does it say that the Church does not baptise infants. It is read many times in the bible believe and be baptised, but there is an occasion when the order is reversed, be baptised and believe. You also find occasions when whole households were baptised, naturally there were children. And St. Justin Martyr speaks of a old women that he knew that were baptised by the apostles. If you consider the time that St. Justin wrote they had to have been very young when they were baptised.

 

[Church_Militant]

This; The Case For Infant Baptism

 

[Crumpy]

A commonly cited verse is the one where Jesus says to let the little children come unto him.

 

[Nita]

I think one of the best proofs is to compare the 2 Covenants - Old and New.
Incorporation into the Old Covenant was effected thru the rite of circumcision. For those born to parents who were Jews, this rite was to be performed when the baby was 8 days old. (cf. Lev. 12:3) Faithful Jewish parents automatically brought their babies to be circumcised.
The Old Covenant was a preparation for the New. (That is an interesting study on its own - how it prepared for the New.)

Initiation into the New Covenant is effected thru the rite of Baptism. The first Christians were almost all Jews - familiar with the need for a rite to enter a Covenant, familiar with when it could be administered.
Those Jewish adult who accepted the Christian message and were baptized into the New Covenant would automatically have sought initiation for all their children also. Since there is no record in Scripture or anywhere else of Jesus making a change in the age of when one could be initiated into a Covenant established by God, the apostles would naturally have followed the prior established precedent from the previous Covenant.

 

[Nita]

I think one of the best proofs is to compare the 2 Covenants - Old and New.
Incorporation into the Old Covenant was effected thru the rite of circumcision. For those born to parents who were Jews, this rite was to be performed when the baby was 8 days old. (cf. Acts 7:8; Lev. 12:3) Faithful Jewish parents automatically brought their babies to be circumcised.
The Old Covenant was a preparation for the New. (That is an interesting study on its own - how it prepared for the New.)

Initiation into the New Covenant is effected thru the rite of Baptism. The first Christians were almost all Jews - familiar with the need for a rite to enter a Covenant, familiar with when it could be administered.
Those Jewish adult who accepted the Christian message and were baptized into the New Covenant would automatically have sought initiation for all their children also. Since there is no record in Scripture or anywhere else of Jesus making a change in the age of when one could be initiated into a Covenant established by God, the apostles would naturally have followed the prior established precedent from the previous Covenant.

 

[Cashue]

I came across this and I thought it was a very interstering argument.

1. It is interesting to think about the fact that Peter is using the analogy of Noah’s Flood to relate to baptism. The only person we ever read about having believed is Noah (Genesis 6:8). And yet God makes covenant with Noah and his family (Genesis 6:18).

Now perhaps for some this will not hold water (pun intended!) but it seems clear that: i. Noah was a believer ii. on the basis of his faith God saved (‘baptized’) his family (even though all were old enough to make a profession of faith) iii. Peter compares this flood to the baptism of today. iv. baptism is not given based upon anything we have done but because of God’s promise as the rest of the Bible teaches.

Questions? Comments? Criticisms?

Yes that sounds reasonable, Noah’s three sons were adults but they were still Noah’s Children, so while they made adult independent decisions to serve God faithfully their serving with their father (or father in law, as regards their wives) was a fitting symbol of infant baptism.

 

[Actaeon]

I came across this and I thought it was a very interstering argument.

1. It is interesting to think about the fact that Peter is using the analogy of Noah’s Flood to relate to baptism. The only person we ever read about having believed is Noah (Genesis 6:8). And yet God makes covenant with Noah and his family (Genesis 6:18).

Now perhaps for some this will not hold water (pun intended!) but it seems clear that: i. Noah was a believer ii. on the basis of his faith God saved (‘baptized’) his family (even though all were old enough to make a profession of faith) iii. Peter compares this flood to the baptism of today. iv. baptism is not given based upon anything we have done but because of God’s promise as the rest of the Bible teaches.

Questions? Comments? Criticisms?

Another argument would be to point out that St Paul relates that baptism is the new covenant fulfillment of the Jewish command to circumcision, and that circumcision required no “assent of the will” by the young jewish infants it was (and is) practiced on.

In other words, if circumcision is a prefigurement of baptism (it is) then we would expect that if circumcision is done to infants to initiate them into the jewish faith, that baptism could LIKEWISE be done to infants to initiate them into the christian faith.

 

[circumferential]

I believe that baptism is like God opening the door, washing you off and inviting you in. Basically it is an action of God. The door remains open to the baptised at least until death. The person is counted among the community whether he mingles with the community or not. Of course he could walk out at any time, or refuse to walk in at all but the point is that it is not up to him to be invited. He can only accept then or later, or reject the offer.