Yet another Infant Baptism proof - from St. Paul

[Randy_Carson]

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, “If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available” (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, “he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring” (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be “disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace” (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done “with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner” (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water “not much (or not at all) the cleaner.”

From: catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

 

[NotWorthy]

Which Greek Lexicon are you using for the definition of baptizo?

Oh, Good Lord, I don’t know. I’ll have to ask Jimmy Akin, because I believe I got this definition from his sight.

Secondly, Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan river, right? If Jesus had wanted John to pour water over Him, I’m sure there would have been a better location to perform this; say the Temple maybe?

Read Isaiah 40

A voice cries out: In the desert prepare the way of the LORD! Make straight in the wasteland a highway for our God!

and Mark 1 one more time.

A voice of one crying out in the desert: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.’" John (the) Baptist appeared in the desert proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

You see, when Jesus was “Fulfilling all Righteousness”, so was John!

What of the act of the Ethiopian eunuch; he would have used his water bottle I am sure instead of going down “into the water” with Philip. Oh, and he came up out of the water too.

I can walk into a stream that is 18" deep, or I can walk 2’ into a deep river. And in both instances I can “come up out of the water” without getting my head wet. I fail to see your point, here.

BTW, while we’re on the subject of the Eunuch (I’m glad you brought that up!!!) Why didn’t the Holy Spirit guide him to understand Isaiah? Why did he tell Phillip (a representative of Christ’s Church) to teach him? Which one of these two options follows Catholic Doctrine more closely?

 

[NotWorthy]

Salamander, please read Ezekiel, chapter 36 for me and tell me what this prophecies:

Ezekiel 36:25-27. God says in Ezekiel, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees.”

Do you agree that this clearly prophocies Baptism?

 

[Salamander]

I see your point too Randy. My understanding is that “much water” was used in the baptism of believers, not a little. Why else would baptismal (baptistries) be located in the caves and homes of believers in the First Century? I just can’t believe that we have an example that would include pouring as cleansing the whole body. When is the last time someone was buried with their feet or head still out of the ground? When Jesus was placed in the tomb, he wasn’t put in there with a foot or hand sticking out. I believe and the scriptures read (not tradition) that it is a burial, just as Paul wrote in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12. It is a burial, a complete covering. 1 Peter 3:21. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Jesus came out of the tomb. We, when baptized (buried), come out of the water.

 

[Nita]

No Nita, are you saying that infants have faith?

Sal.

I don’t know what the “No Nita” applies to, but regarding the second part of your quote:

No I would not say that infants have faith. What the jailer passage shows - if the household included infants - is that the responsible adult can make the decision to have the child baptized.

Nita

 

[Salamander]

No, I do not. Do you agree that the Old Testament is an “old will”? Or do you use it as a tutor? The “New Testament” is the “new will” of the testator. If Jesus said be baptizoed, then that is what I have done. I don’t sacrifice animals either.

 

[NotWorthy]

I see your point too Randy. My understanding is that “much water” was used in the baptism of believers, not a little. Why else would baptismal (baptistries) be located in the caves and homes of believers in the First Century? I just can’t believe that we have an example that would include pouring as cleansing the whole body. When is the last time someone was buried with their feet or head still out of the ground? When Jesus was placed in the tomb, he wasn’t put in there with a foot or hand sticking out. I believe and the scriptures read (not tradition) that it is a burial, just as Paul wrote in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12. It is a burial, a complete covering. 1 Peter 3:21. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Jesus came out of the tomb. We, when baptized (buried), come out of the water.

Catholics can reconcile that sprinkling is our dying in Christ, just as we realize that what looks like a wafer is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, I do not. Do you agree that the Old Testament is an “old will”? Or do you use it as a tutor? The “New Testament” is the “new will” of the testator. If Jesus said be baptizoed, then that is what I have done. I don’t sacrifice animals either.

So, the Holy Spirit guided you to interpret that the Old Testament is not really important anymore?!?

Read Timothy 3:16 one more time. What Scriptures do you think Paul was referring to, the King James Version? No, he was referring to the Old Testament.

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

 

[Salamander]

Uh, sorry, didn’t finish. A few points then I’m off to bed. I’ll continue later if and when available.

(1) Infants can’t repent.

(2) “When all fear of persecution had passed away, and the empire had become almost entirely Christian, the necessity for a prolonged period of trial and instruction no longer existed, about the same time the fuller teaching on the subject of original sin, occasioned by the Pelagian heresy, gradually led to the administration of baptism of infants.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 78). Does this mean that the Catholic Encyclopedia trumps the Bible?

(3) “Ecclesiastical custom with regard to the administration of Baptism has undergone a change in the course of history. Whereas the early Church baptized adults only, the baptism of children soon became the usual practice.” (Sanford, Alexander E., MD, Pastoral Medicine: Handbook for the Catholic Clergy, 1904, p 32-33) So custom, change, and tradition also trump the scriptures? Wow, this is very interesting.

Nighty, night.

 

[NotWorthy]

Salamander, your reply stuns me. Look again at Ezekiel. It begins with God Says

Ezekiel 36:25-27. God says in Ezekiel, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees.”
Now compare this with Peter in Acts: Remember, the Jews asked, “What are we to do, brother?” Peter replies, and I can promise you he’s relying on this “old Tutor” as you put it:

Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I see your point too Randy. My understanding is that “much water” was used in the baptism of believers, not a little. Why else would baptismal (baptistries) be located in the caves and homes of believers in the First Century? I just can’t believe that we have an example that would include pouring as cleansing the whole body. When is the last time someone was buried with their feet or head still out of the ground? When Jesus was placed in the tomb, he wasn’t put in there with a foot or hand sticking out. I believe and the scriptures read (not tradition) that it is a burial, just as Paul wrote in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12. It is a burial, a complete covering. 1 Peter 3:21. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Jesus came out of the tomb. We, when baptized (buried), come out of the water.

Agreed.

I’m just not in agreement about how much water it takes to make the sacrament valid. Since the scriptures are silent on the quantity of water and the precise instructions on baptism (apart from the Trinitarian formula), I think we can rely on the teaching of the early Church members who were taught by the Apostles, wouldn’t you agree?

But your literalist approach makes me nervous: how do you interpret “circumcision of the heart”?

 

[NotWorthy]

Uh, sorry, didn’t finish. A few points then I’m off to bed. I’ll continue later if and when available.

(1) Infants can’t repent.

Who says they can? None of us have. But you have yet to begin to address how Circumcision was obviously replaced by Baptism, as Paul plainly states it - and yet it eliminated infants? Why didn’t Paul point this minor detail out?

(2) “When all fear of persecution had passed away, and the empire had become almost entirely Christian, the necessity for a prolonged period of trial and instruction no longer existed, about the same time the fuller teaching on the subject of original sin, occasioned by the Pelagian heresy, gradually led to the administration of baptism of infants.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 78). Does this mean that the Catholic Encyclopedia trumps the Bible?

Where are you getting this quote from. Here’s the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Since you’ve obviously done your homework, you can show me where it says this. After you wake up, can you show it to me? In the 2nd Century, the Catholic Encyclopedia quotes St. Ireneaus “"Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths”

(3) “Ecclesiastical custom with regard to the administration of Baptism has undergone a change in the course of history. Whereas the early Church baptized adults only, the baptism of children soon became the usual practice.” (Sanford, Alexander E., MD, Pastoral Medicine: Handbook for the Catholic Clergy, 1904, p 32-33) So custom, change, and tradition also trump the scriptures? Wow, this is very interesting.

Evidently, this source is not correct. For there is evidence that Christians were baptizing their children from their early youth in the 1st century.
*And, finally, archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]*Good Night!

Nighty, night.

 

[NotWorthy]

But your literalist approach makes me nervous: how do you interpret “circumcision of the heart”?

 

[NotWorthy]

Salamander, one more interesting note.

From “Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine” by Michael Sheehan:

It is not true that full immersion remained common even in the early Church: of the dozen or more 3rd and 4th century baptisteries excavated in Greece, only two have fonts a metre or so deep, and most are under 50cm, i.e., knee-deep if full. The same patterrn is true of baptisteries found in Syria, Palestine, Egypt and N. Africa. A fresco from the first half of the 3rd century in the Catacombs of St. Callistrus, Rome, shows a baptism being performed in water a few inches deep. From all these it is clear that an adult candidate stood in a shallow pool, and some water was gathered from it and poured over his head.

Sources: J.G. Davies, The Architectural Setting of Baptism, Barrie and Rockliff, London 1962; S.A. Stauffer, On the Baptismal Fonts: Ancient and Modern, Grove Books, Nottingham 1994; Bellarmino Bagatti OFM, The Church from the Circumcision: History and Archaeology of the Judaeo-Christians, Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem 1984, p. 245; Id., The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine: History and Archaeology, Francisc. P. Press, Jerusalem 1984, pp. 301-8.

 

[billbush]

You are missing the point on both the Job passage and the Psalms passage.

Job is lamenting his condition; him life, at this point, was full of trouble.

David is confessing the depravity he saw in his life due to the sin he had committed and was not asking God to forgive him of … his sin with Bathsheba and having her husband killed. I am sure he felt at this point of his life that because of the thing he had done, he must have been born sinful!

As for your NT references, none say anything anout Christ baptizing one child … not one! Yes, as baptized we must become like children, PURE in the eyes of God!

 

[MariaG]

The eunuch HAD to UNDERSTAND! - can a baby understand? Can you cause a baby to understand an issue like salvation and remission of sins?..
They HAD to REPENT! -can a baby repent? What does a baby have to repent for?..again, can you cause a baby to believe? I think not!

Nita,

…I believe that children come to an “age of accountability” when they understand what “sin” is…that’s when they can make a conscious decision.

Sal.

No Nita, are you saying that infants have faith?

Sal.

There seems to be a misunderstanding that scripture can clear up. The misunderstanding seems to be that infants cannot have faith?

First, scripture tells us that all have written on their heart, what is right and wrong. While a person may not be fully aware of the law until older, it is written on their hearts. Since God tells us we must come to Him like little children, clearly little children are capable of repentance, since one must repent to be saved. While it may be a different form of repentance, unless you are saying that little children “can’t” repent, I would then need you to show me in scripture where it says this and where it says little children get a free pass into heaven until the age of reason.

However, I submit to you both that anyone with children, even infants can see that they are aware of hurting others (nursing mothers know this ), and stop. Unless you believe that infants are no better than dogs who are learning behavoir based on actions, I don’t see how you can believe infants can’t repent of their actions, in an innocent and infantile way. The Law IS written on their hearts.

:bible1: Romans 2:14When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

Second, there also seems to be the belief that infants are unaware and cannot have faith. So maybe, even though you think they have the law on their hearts, they are completely unaware of it?

Well we can see in scripture again that infants in the womb are aware of who God is, and respond to Him.

:bible1:Luke1:41 - 44
41And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.

Clearly even infants recognize their Lord, even in the womb.

Why did the babe leap for joy? Why? Because the babe, was able to recognize their Lord. And not only recognize their Lord, for we all know that even Satan would recognize the Lord, but the babe leapt for joy. That shows a faith, the faith of a little child.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[billbush]

No Maria, children do not have understanding. One very specific child had understanding! You cannot say that because John leaped that all unborn children have the same sort of understanding.

Yes, an infant has some very basic “understanding” due to conditioning but is an infant able to reason, can an infant understand, confess, repent (of what)?

A child or someone of some diminished mental capacity is not held to the same standard as the mature or those who have matured to the point of understanding sin.

 

[clmowry]

So you are claiming that any baptism during which a person is not fully immersed would be invalid?

Correct?

Chuck

Which Greek Lexicon are you using for the definition of baptizo?

Secondly, Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan river, right? If Jesus had wanted John to pour water over Him, I’m sure there would have been a better location to perform this; say the Temple maybe?

What of the act of the Ethiopian eunuch; he would have used his water bottle I am sure instead of going down “into the water” with Philip. Oh, and he came up out of the water too.

 

[MariaG]

No Maria, children do not have understanding. One very specific child had understanding! You cannot say that because John leaped that all unborn children have the same sort of understanding.

Yes, an infant has some very basic “understanding” due to conditioning but is an infant able to reason, can an infant understand, confess, repent (of what)?

A child or someone of some diminished mental capacity is not held to the same standard as the mature or those who have matured to the point of understanding sin.

You tell me that even though one child leapt for joy, that I cannot say all have the understanding yet you can say all do not have the understanding even though one did? That is illogical.

We can see from scripture that infants CAN have this understanding. Show me the scripture that supports you idea that infants cannot have understanding and John was the exception otherwise you are simply giving your opinion, an opinion that contradicts at least one specific case in scripture.

 

[clmowry]

I believe in John Chapter 4 verse 1 it says that Jesus did not baptize anyone. Only his desciples did.

Just wondering, is there an explicit description of Christ or his apostles baptizing a woman in the bible?

If not, then I guess, by your logic, we should conclude that women should not be baptized either?

Chuck

You are missing the point on both the Job passage and the Psalms passage.

Job is lamenting his condition; him life, at this point, was full of trouble.

David is confessing the depravity he saw in his life due to the sin he had committed and was not asking God to forgive him of … his sin with Bathsheba and having her husband killed. I am sure he felt at this point of his life that because of the thing he had done, he must have been born sinful!

As for your NT references, none say anything anout Christ baptizing one child … not one! Yes, as baptized we must become like children, PURE in the eyes of God!