Yet another Infant Baptism proof - from St. Paul

[JBaker45]

Hello NotWorthy,

Sounds to me like Paul is anticipating the baptism of anyone of any age of the jailor’s family.

What are your thoughts on this?

I am reminded of another example set forth in Acts 8:9-21 regarding the baptism of Simon the sorcerer.
Apparently, it really does matter what the condition of a man’s heart is.

The question becomes: does this place a limit on how young one who is to be baptized can be? Perhaps. But certainly baptism of itself can not save anyone of any age.

Because the scriptures teach that baptism is a convenient sign signifying the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ, it seems fitting that those who have accepted Jesus as their savior are the ones who should follow in baptism.

That said, there does seem to be a solid biblical basis to be found for childhood dedications. A child, after all, is under the headship of his parents and particularly his or her father.

You should google this: Federal Headship

 

[desert_cath]

Consider these verses:

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!

Read your Bible for yourself, the Bible, not some othert book put together by common men!

Why is it that one has to see for himself the actual words appearing in the Bible before one has to be convinced that it indeed was spoken of in the Bible???

When the Jews started converting to Christianity, is it probable that the elders (or persons who have reached the age of reason) were the FIRST to be baptized? And after they were baptized would you think they will leave the rest of their household or family, especially their children unbaptized after they came to believe in the saving power of baptism??? or only the childless or those without infant children are accepted for baptism When Peter baptized thousands of people in one day are they all grown-ups, because we did not see the word “baby” or “infant” in that passage?? more confused

Read your Bible for yourself, the Bible, not some othert book put together by common men!

From various separate books who btw put together the Bible as we have it today? Are they not common (but supernaturally guided) men?

 

[MariaG]

Hello NotWorthy,

I am reminded of another example set forth in Acts 8:9-21 regarding the baptism of Simon the sorcerer.
Apparently, it really does matter what the condition of a man’s heart is.

The question becomes: does this place a limit on how young one who is to be baptized can be? Perhaps. But certainly baptism of itself can not save anyone of any age.

Because the scriptures teach that baptism is a convenient sign signifying the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ, it seems fitting that those who have accepted Jesus as their savior are the ones who should follow in baptism.

That said, there does seem to be a solid biblical basis to be found for childhood dedications. A child, after all, is under the headship of his parents and particularly his or her father.

You should google this: Federal Headship

Respectfully, Christians for 1500 years, (including Luther) did not teach that baptism is a “convenient sign” but an actual miracle of God.

“Symbolic” Baptism Just Won’t Wash by Karl Keating

“He saved us . . . by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit . . . so that we might be justified by his grace” (Titus 3:5–7).

What is this washing of regeneration? Baptism.

Early Teachings on Infant Baptism

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

---

On both fronts, scripture and Christian history, we can see that Christians firmly taught and practiced infant baptism because something that GOD does to us, actually happens during baptism.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[JBaker45]

Hello Maria,

I almost missed this. It seems to have posted under another poster. But I found it

“He saved us . . . by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit . . . so that we might be justified by his grace” (Titus 3:5–7).

What is this washing of regeneration? Baptism.

Baptism?

No. The washing of regeneration was what Jesus did for us on the cross. He washed us with His precious blood at Calvary (Revelation 1:5; 7:14). See also John 13 where Jesus explains the healing work that He will perform on the cross using the analogy of the washing of their feet. Also, 1 Peter 2:24 explains that all believers where spiritually “healed” by Jesus at Calvary. And in the parallel passages of Matthew 13:10-15 and Mark 4:11-12 we learn that Christ should heal everyone who will become converted and have his sins forgiven him.

Thus when Jesus said, “it is finished” and gave up His spirit (John 19:30), we understand that this healing, cleansing, and regenerative work had been completed.

(Lol - There is my short summation of the Reformed position )

MariaG:

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

I find myself in complete agreement with Irenaeus’ first sentence there. But the rest is a little hard to follow

Thanks Maria and God bless,
John

 

[NotWorthy]

(I find myself in complete agreement with Irenaeus’ first sentence there. But the rest is a little hard to follow

And that summarizes the core of Protestantism - the fact that you can’t seem to understand the teaching of the Church from Her very infancy. Nothing in our teaching of Baptism has changed.

 

[JBaker45]

And that summarizes the core of Protestantism - the fact that you can’t seem to understand the teaching of the Church from Her very infancy. Nothing in our teaching of Baptism has changed.

I could agree with you except for one small problem…

Irenaeus is not scripture

 

[MariaG]

Hi John ,

Hello Maria,

I almost missed this. It seems to have posted under another poster. But I found it

Good. I would never want to be overlooked

Baptism?

No. The washing of regeneration was what Jesus did for us on the cross. He washed us with His precious blood at Calvary (Revelation 1:5; 7:14). See also John 13 where Jesus explains the healing work that He will perform on the cross using the analogy of the washing of their feet. Also, 1 Peter 2:24 explains that all believers where spiritually “healed” by Jesus at Calvary. And in the parallel passages of Matthew 13:10-15 and Mark 4:11-12 we learn that Christ should heal everyone who will become converted and have his sins forgiven him.

We do believe that people are spiritually healed, but again, WHEN are they healed? It IS Christ’s blood that washes us clean and His blood washes us clean through our regenerational baptism.

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41 41 Rom 3:21-26.

Thus when Jesus said, “it is finished” and gave up His spirit (John 19:30), we understand that this healing, cleansing, and regenerative work had been completed.

(Lol - There is my short summation of the Reformed position )

Of course His work is completed, but again, when is that work applied to each individual believer? People have to be born again, and are not already in that state when born. Or do you somehow believe that everyone has ALREADY been born again through Christ’s blood, even before baptism or belief? Or is His blood applied to each believer is born again through baptism?

God is outside of time. However, since we are not God, since we do not live outside of time, we can better understand that it is through baptism, as scripture tells us, that we are born again, through the saving blood of Christ.

I find myself in complete agreement with Irenaeus’ first sentence there. But the rest is a little hard to follow

Thanks Maria and God bless,
John

The second part, I believe, is a glimpse of the timelessness of God. Again, we know that we are born again through baptism. As finite creatures, we “see” the “application” of the blood of Christ, shed once for all, at the time of baptism.

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but do not Reformed believe in infant baptism? And if so, how exactly is your belief differ except for semantics? Is not one born again through baptism? And isn’t the rest arguing over the specifics of How or when Christ’s blood brings this about?
Respectfully,

Maria

 

[NotWorthy]

I could agree with you except for one small problem…

Irenaeus is not scripture

But who am I going to trust?

A) A Church that has interpreted Scripture from the very Apostles that gave the Scriptures to us, and has taught the very same thing on Baptism for Her entire 2000 year history (give or take 25 years).

B) A teaching on Baptism that is, quite frankly, all over the map, depending on which “Bible Only” Church you attend for any of the last 500 years.

Hmmmmmmm…

 

[JBaker45]

But who am I going to trust?

Who did the Bereans trust? Paul?
Or did they test what Paul told them against the scriptures?

And because of this, Paul said that the Bereans were more noble than those in Thessalonica (Acts 17:10-11).

Because the Apostles do not teach Baptismal regeneration (for example) in the scriptures (see Simon the sorcerer Acts 8:9-21), then I should not accept it; because to do so would exceeding that which has been written and we are admonished against this (1 Corinthians 4:6).

 

[MariaG]

Because the Apostles do not teach Baptismal regeneration (for example) in the scriptures (see Simon the sorcerer Acts 8:9-21), then I should not accept it; because to do so would exceeding that which has been written and we are admonished against this (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Then why do the reformed baptize infants if it is not regenerational?

 

[JBaker45]

We do believe that people are spiritually healed, but again, WHEN are they healed?

But what does 1 Peter 2:24 say?1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.

MariaG:

Justification is conferred in Baptism

Yet Simon the sorcerer did not become justified by his baptism in Acts 8:9-21 because he had not been born again and his heart was not in the right place.

MariaG:

Of course His work is completed, but again, when is that work applied to each individual believer? People have to be born again, and are not already in that state when born. Or do you somehow believe that everyone has ALREADY been born again through Christ’s blood, even before baptism or belief? Or is His blood applied to each believer is born again through baptism?

Yes, you are asking the right questions, and I can definitely say that I agree with you on this point: that the benefits of the work that was completed on the cross come later, when an individual becomes born again.

And although there is more than one kind of regeneration spoken of in the scriptures, when most reformers speak about regeneration they are referring to becoming born again (generally speaking).

Never the less, it is born again believers who are to be baptized, not unbelievers. Observe Philip’s questioning of the Ethiopian before baptism : Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what does hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.And after that Peter baptized him.

MariaG:

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but do not Reformed believe in infant baptism? And if so, how exactly is your belief differ except for semantics? Is not one born again through baptism? And isn’t the rest arguing over the specifics of How or when Christ’s blood brings this about?
Respectfully,

Maria

Actually, no. The reformed position is that baptism is for believers who (by nature of being in possession of salvational faith in Jesus Christ) are already born again (as per John 1:12-13).

But many reformed churches do practice infant dedication. My friend Rev. Matt Slick, who is a Reformed Presbyterian teaches this.

Peace to you,
John

 

[JBaker45]

Then why do the reformed baptize infants if it is not regenerational?

Lol - Please see my other reply to you below

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2257768

 

[Mannyfit75]

Consider these verses:

Act 8:29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.”
Act 8:30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
Act 8:31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.

The parent consent in behalf of the infant. It is much like in the OT, where the parent consent in behalf of their child for their circumcision.

In the later years, the child gives full consent during the Sacrament of Confirmation.

But to stay on topic, the infant is baptized because the child has original sin, which needs to be cleansed. Is it so wrong to baptized an infant? Remember, Jesus said, “let the children come to me.” Do you wish to deny the Lord, children even infants to his kingdom?"

Apparently you have an issue with Jesus Christ because you want to deny infants baptism.

 

[MariaG]

But what does 1 Peter 2:24 say?1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.
Yet Simon the sorcerer did not become justified by his baptism in Acts 8:9-21 because he had not been born again and his heart was not in the right place.

Respectfully, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You seem to say below that the benefits of Christ’s work are applied when a person is born again. Or maybe it is we just disagree about how a person is born again?

The teaching in the Catholic Church is that one is born again in baptism.

I think our disagreement is whether or not it is in baptism that someone is born again or I am not sure what you believe, that it is faith alone? that one becomes born again and baptism is just symbolic?

Yes, you are asking the right questions, and I can definitely say that I agree with you on this point: that the benefits of the work that was completed on the cross come later, when an individual becomes born again.

Okay so what we disagree on is whether or not it is baptism when someone is born again.

You use the example of Simon to show that he was NOT born again in Baptism. Let’s look at that more closely. I have not actually done so in the context of Catholic teaching so please note that my opinion is just that and not indicitive in any way the “official” Catholic answer.

I do not have the answer for you at this time. However, I will get back to this. I am looking for the “Catholic answer” but it is not easily found it seems. Not surprising since the Catholic Church does not in fact, have an “official” interpretation of every single scripture verse.

And although there is more than one kind of regeneration spoken of in the scriptures, when most reformers speak about regeneration they are referring to becoming born again (generally speaking).

When Catholics talk of regeneration, we also refer to being born again. Again, I believe the disagreement lies in whether or not one is born again in baptism or just through a belief.

The Early Church Fathers did not interpret scripture in any way except that of baptism being regenerational.

Born Again in Baptism

And as this is the view of all of Christianity for over 1600 years.

Actually, no. The reformed position is that baptism is for believers who (by nature of being in possession of salvational faith in Jesus Christ) are already born again (as per John 1:12-13).

But many reformed churches do practice infant dedication. My friend Rev. Matt Slick, who is a Reformed Presbyterian teaches this.

Peace to you,
John

Interesting. Is there more than one school of thought for the reformed because the ones I read online seemed to completely condemn the late coming idea that infants cannot be baptized?

Peace and God Bless,
Maria

 

[rob179ny]

Even with all these replies we must never forget the authority of the church to bind and loose. If the church wishes that an infant be baptised during a blue moon with a cow jumping over it, while pigs fly then so be it.

I respect that. Because The lord requested this. ( not the pigs fly and blue moon but the authority )

With an understanding of Original sin, I would have the worst guilt upon me if I did not baptise my infant child and she was to pass away. Knowing this, my heart would ache as a parent I think Jesus himself would not neglect a child especially an infant due to a technicality such as age, from baptism. We want the best for our children as the father in heaven does to. I ask our Christian brothers and sister who oppose infant baptism to look to our mother Mary the first christian, the first believer in our lord Jesus. Honor her as Jesus did, then maybe the smoke will clear.

With love for all my christian brothers and sisters.

 

[JBaker45]

Respectfully, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You seem to say below that the benefits of Christ’s work are applied when a person is born again. Or maybe it is we just disagree about how a person is born again?

Yes, I think that is it. We disagree on what being born again is.

Of course, the Reformed understanding is derived from scripture. In particular see :
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
You see, the ones who believe are the ones who are born again of God. Philip asked the Ethiopian is he believed prior to his being baptized (Acts 8:36-37). This is because baptism is for people who have already been born again.
(See also Jesus’ response to Nicodemus John 3:3-8.)

MariaG:

You use the example of Simon to show that he was NOT born again in Baptism. Let’s look at that more closely. I have not actually done so in the context of Catholic teaching so please note that my opinion is just that and not indicitive in any way the “official” Catholic answer.

I do not have the answer for you at this time. However, I will get back to this. I am looking for the “Catholic answer” but it is not easily found it seems. Not surprising since the Catholic Church does not in fact, have an “official” interpretation of every single scripture verse.

That’s okay. You can get back with me later on this if you wish.

MariaG:

The Early Church Fathers did not interpret scripture in any way except that of baptism being regenerational.

Well, the earliest church fathers are the Apostles who actually wrote the inspired books of the New Testament.

Can you show me were they said that baptism results in regeneration because I have already shown you an example in Acts 8:9-21 where Phillip baptized Simon, but later it was discovered by Peter that Simon was not regenerate.

MariaG:

Interesting. Is there more than one school of thought for the reformed because the ones I read online seemed to completely condemn the late coming idea that infants cannot be baptized?

Peace and God Bless,
Maria

As a matter of fact, John Calvin (the same one that gives Calvinism it’s name) did teach a form of infant baptism. But even here, it is my understanding that the infant baptism that John Calvin taught was more akin to a dedication than the recognition of actual regeneration.

But don’t get the wrong idea. It’s not like children can not become regenerate believers at a young age. If a child can answer Philips question (Acts 8:37) in the affirmative, then he or she should be baptized

Blessings,
John

 

[JBaker45]

Hello Rob,

Even with all these replies we must never forget the authority of the church to bind and loose.

Agreed.

Of course, the position of the Reformers is that the entirety of the body of Christ is the church.

God bless,
John

 

[rob179ny]

Hello Rob,

Agreed.

Of course, the position of the Reformers is that the entirety of the body of Christ is the church.

God bless,
John

The real question is are they in union with Peter the bishop of Rome ( The 1st pope ) and his successors ( the Popes to come after him ) , who were given the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven and given this special authority.

 

[NotWorthy]

Who did the Bereans trust? Paul?
Or did they test what Paul told them against the scriptures?

And because of this, Paul said that the Bereans were more noble than those in Thessalonica (Acts 17:10-11).

Because the Apostles do not teach Baptismal regeneration (for example) in the scriptures (see Simon the sorcerer Acts 8:9-21), then I should not accept it; because to do so would exceeding that which has been written and we are admonished against this (1 Corinthians 4:6).

And yet, you still can’t address the issue.

First of all, “your interpretation” does not see the regenerative teaching of the Apostles. Just as other faith who don’t believe this have produced numerous variations of the specifics of baptism.

I’ve tested the Scriptures. The Early Church Fathers have tested the Scriptures. And the Church that gave us the Bible Canon tested Baptism against the Scriptures. Don’t you realize that if they disagreed with the Scriptures, the Scriptures wouldn’t have been in the Canon?!?

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, I think that is it. We disagree on what being born again is.

Of course, the Reformed understanding is derived from scripture.

OK, I"m confused. WHICH Reformed understanding is derived from Scriptures. There’s so many different beliefs, I’m afraid I lost count!