Infant Baptism

[chrismarc]

Smalcald said,

Where is the scriptural support for NOT baptizing children?

We know that infants and children can and do have faith. It comes down to a conception of what Baptism is. Is it something that God does for us, or is it a ceremony that we do for God? Does it confer the Holy Spirit, or is it some sort of work which proves our faith to God? Does anything special happens in baptism, or is it simply a ceremony with no real power? It comes down to a conception of the grace of God. Only faith saves us, we all have the ability to deny our baptism, but that does not make baptism false, anymore than it makes communion false when someone takes it in an unworthy manner, or someone without faith takes communion.

True, infant baptism is just 1 teaching unclear to Sola Scripturians,

as they ignore the Scriptural doctrine on Sacred Tradition as a crucial

part of Christianity. Grace and baptism too are misunderstood by

fundamentalists and should be discussed in separate posts. Has this

been covered before? Someone want to start?

[chrismarc]

]eric said,

Oh dear! I should have known. Sorry mate I don't do catholic v protestant bebates. It causes too much dissention. Bigots like you make it embarrassing for the rest of the catholics who frequently post on this board like Fiosh for instance. So don't be offended if I don't respond to any more of your posts.

Hmm, you speak of dissension and bigotry, yet you are the

one accusatory, btw, i'm not embarrassed.

[Brother Chad]

Now i am expecting support on this from SW, Eric and others who also believe in Infant

Baptism (probably 80% of all Christians), including Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Orthodox, etc.

In Acts 2:38-39; 16:15,33; 18:8 (cf. 11:14), and 1 Cor 1:16 it is stated that an individual and his whole household were baptized. It would be hard to say this involved no small children. Now, who are the members of a household? In my own household, the "members" are my wife, myself and 2 daughters. People generally had more children in those days, before contraception and abortion and an anti-child mentality became prevalent. So it is quite reasonable to assume that children were included in the baptism. The very fact that it mentions household rather than simply husband, is a clear indication of others being involved. In that time and culture, that probably would have included parents as well, maybe grandparents, or siblings or cousins.

Many biblical passages connect household and children:

(Gen. 18:19) For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just . . . (Gen. 31:41) It was like this for the twenty years I was in your household. I worked for you fourteen years for your two daughters . . . (Gen. 36:6) Esau took his wives and sons and daughters and all the members of his household . . . (Gen. 47:12) Joseph also provided his father and his brothers and all his father's household with food, according to the number of their children.

(Num. 18:11) . . . I give this to you and your sons and daughters as your regular share. Everyone in your household who is ceremonially clean may eat it. (1 Chron. 10:6) So Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together.

(Matt. 19:29) And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

(1 Tim. 3:12)... deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Furthermore, the Greek word for house or household in four passages connecting it with baptism (Acts 16:15,33, 18:8, and 1 Cor 1:16) is oikos (from which the English economy derives). Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon defines it in its usage at Acts 18:8, 1 Cor. 1:16, and Acts 16:31 (in the immediate context of 16:33), as the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household (p. 441; Strong's word #3624).

To be saved (or baptized), one doesn't necessarily have to be aware of what is happening. For example, say a child was born a vegetable, with severe brain defects, and died at ten years of age, still incapable of rational thought or communication. Is that child damned simply because she couldn't "believe"? I think not. I think that God's mercy extends to those who do not yet know or understand the gospel, or else all aborted babies, children who die at a young age, or before the age of reason, etc. go to hell. I don't believe that for a second. But here are some more relevant verses:

(Luke 19:9) Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son ofAbraham. (Acts 11:14) He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved. (Acts 16:31) They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved; you and your household."

(Titus 3:5)... he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

Compare this to (John 3:5)- Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (cf. 3:3: "unless a man is born again ...")

The two passages are almost exactly parallel:

Titus: "saved" / John: "enter the kingdom of God"

Titus: "washing of rebirth" / John: "born of water"

Titus: "renewal by the Holy Spirit" / John: "born . . . of the Spirit"

This is how one interprets Scripture: by comparing it with itself when there are obvious parallels, to help determine what the less clear passages might mean. I think this one is undeniable. What is "washing" in one verse (with two other common elements) is shown to be "water" in the other. Thus, baptism is tied to salvation, in accord with the other verses above.

Jesus makes it clear that children are to be in the Kingdom thus requiring baptism:

(Luke 18:15-16) "And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them. But Jesus, calling them together, said: 'Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.' "

(Matt. 19:13-14) "Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said to them:' Suffer the little children and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.' "

(Mark 10:13-14) "And they brought to him young children, that he might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them that brought them. Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and saith to them: ' Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God.' "

Paul in Col. 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38; Rom. 9:4). Circumcision, given to 8-day old boys, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Gal. 3:14,29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Rom. 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Gen. 17:7; Deut. 29:10-12, cf. Matt. 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant in Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did

(Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 9:25, Rom. 2:28-9, Phil. 3:3). Infants are wholly saved by God's grace just as adults are, only apart from their rational and willful consent. Their parents act in their behalf.

For more on John Calvin's exegetical argument connecting baptism with circumcision, see: Baptism and its Parallel With Circumcision (John Calvin)-

http://web.archive.org/web/20030604152710/...smus/RAZ328.HTM

The fundamentalist position against infant baptism is a consequence not of the Bible's

strictures, but of their logic about salvation. They see salvation as coming not through

an infusion of grace (Catholic position), but through an acceptance of Jesus as one's

personal Lord and Savior (not in the Bible).

End of biblical exegesis on infant baptism.

Being outnumbered on this forum, please be patient as i attempt to teach non-Catholics why we believe what we do. i would ask all nay-sayers to read the referenced texts in prayer and ask the Holy Spirit to open your scaly eyes and your hearts to the fullness of the Truth. As hard as this may be, try not to just spout off anti-Catholic drivel based on hatred of the Church which you have been fed for years. Is it possible these attacks come from someone other than God?!

According to Holy Scripture, Christ did found His One Church on Peter and gave him the Keys to the Kingdom (Mt. 16:18-19) - this will be my the next topic i shall take up, in reply to Marnie's request for biblical texts on certain Catholic doctrine.

If you reject His Church, you reject Him.

Call it what you will but infant baptism is not a part of the Bible. As Christians we should strive to align our doctrines with that of the only manual necessary to bring about obedience to the Word of God. When you show a verse like that of Cornelius and his entire household, would you also include any animals that were present? Babies are not able to have saving faith like that of someone who is older. We must have this faith in order to submit to the Lord's Ways. There is no need to baptize a baby because they are not held accountable like the rest of us who have sinned. We must remember that water baptism is necessary for the "remission of sins" and babies once again have not sinned. So we all know that babies are unable to have a clear understanding of faith and obedience to God and will eventually come to these realizations, it is then that they are to "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38). The Catholic doctrine has many issues of man's hand running through it and this is yet another instance of that taking place. God bless our babies that they are not held accountable until their reasoning skills have been realized.

[eric]

Accusatory? I haven't accused anybody of anything. All I said is that I dont endulge in catholic/protestant debates. I am not anti catholic as far as personalities go, but I don't buy into some of their religious practises. I dont buy into infant baptism scriptually so there's no point in my hanging around.

[William Putnam]

The teaching on infant baptism in the Bible is clear

[apothanein kerdos]

I have no problem if anyone wants to rely on tradition...but if you do, at least rely on proper tradition.

You forget that pedobaptism WAS NOT the standard teaching in the early Church or practice and instead brought controversy. Gregory of Nazianzus authorized pedobaptism but no younger than the age of three. He wanted the child to be able to recolect what occured, otherwise it would hold no value. Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine were all baptized after they were twenty yet came from Christian homes. It wasn't accepted as an actual Church practice until the 4th century. Prior to this it was controversial and not always practiced.

[William Putnam]

William Putnam

Hummm, wait a minute. Maybe I have figured it out, since Sola Scriptura is "scripture only" insofar as determining doctrines in your paridigm of faith, then if infant baptism is not implicit, it is not scriptural, period, rejected, not to be practiced. Correct me if I am wrong here

Okay - consider yourself corrected - you are wrong. As mentioned on this thread ad nauseam neither Scripture nor history is on the side of pedobaptists. Infant baptism is a corruption of Christian baptism as institited by Jesus Christ. The practice of infant baptism was institiuded some three hundred years after the apostolic era. It met with long and hard resistance before the corrupted church that morphed into Catholism capitulated and allowed its practice.

Let me see now: I did a good "Dogpile" search and ran across this interesting paper by a Lutheran. I quote this portion:

The Early Church

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Church Councils and Apologists

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God..... especially infants. . . those newly born." Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9: "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit."

Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. Cyprian's reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).

To prevent misunderstanding by rural bishops, perhaps not as well-schooled as other or even new to the faith, the Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: "If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema."

This comes form the link:

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm

You said "some three hundred years after the apostolic era," but I am seeing some documentation here that goes back to edge of the beginning of the second century.

The rest of your comment is simply your own opinion and conclusion, which is fine, but you prove nothing by it. I simply disagree with you here, believing that the evidence is quite clear, from at least the beginnings of the 2nd century, that infant baptism was the practice of the early Church.

How close to the apostolic era do you want me to go the make the case through non-scriptural history? Will you raise the bar and say, "OK, nothing earlier then 100 years after the end of the apostolic era"? (Assuming that the end of the apostolic era is circa A.D. 100.) Did the Church fall into serious error over this error so soon? Even in the span of 100 years + or -?

You can appeal to your church councils, early fathers and Popes for authority but you cannot appeal to Jesus Christ or any of the inspired writers for such authority because such authority does not exist.

Not being glib of tongue, let's see what this Lutheran says:

What Does the Bible Say?

Those who reject the Baptism of infants accurately point out that the Bible does not specifically command that infants should be baptized nor are there any specific examples in the Book of Acts of an infant receiving Baptism.

While this is true, it is not difficult to explain. The Book of Acts deals with first generation adult converts to Christianity. The Bible does not tell us what these first Christians did with their children as far as Baptism is concerned. In order to definitively answer that question, we must look into the writings of the early church fathers.

Yet, the Bible is not silent in the matter. What you see in the Word of God concerning the Baptism of infants depends upon how you approach the Word. When searching Scripture in order to answer the infant Baptism question, the issue is not whether or not there are any specific references including children and infants in Baptism. Rather, the issue is whether or not there are specific references in Scripture excluding children and infants from Baptism. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is an inclusive message. "God so loved the world," and Jesus commanded us to "baptize all nations." Obviously, infants are a part of the world and represented in all nations.

The reasoning used by those who reject infant Baptism was the same reasoning used by the Supreme Court in dealing with the abortion issue. The Court was faced with the question of whether or not a fetus is a person who is guaranteed the right to life under the constitution. Should the unborn be included or excluded from the rights of personhood? Since they were unable to answer the question, rather than potentially erring on the side of inclusion, they excluded the unborn and made abortion legal.

Those who reject infant Baptism claim that there is no biblical warrant for including infants and children in Baptism. But the real question is, does the Bible specifically exclude infants and children from Baptism? Definitely not!

In Mark 10: 14 our Lord Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." The Greek word for children in this text is paidia, which means babes in arms. What means other than Baptism has God provided whereby little children can be brought to Jesus? Baptism is the only way we know of. If you want to obey the command of the Lord Jesus concerning your little children, have them baptized!

In addition, there are five references in the New Testament to the Baptism of entire households. Peter baptized the household of Cornelius (Acts 11: 14). In Philippi, Paul baptized the household of Lydia and the household of the jailer (Acts 16: 15, 33). He also baptized the household of Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks of baptizing the household of Stephanas (1: 16). The Greek word for household is oikon and refers to all the inhabitants of the house including slaves, servants, infants and children. Can anyone seriously suggest that within the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Jailer, Crispus and Stephanas there were no children or infants present?

In addition, if the members of these households had converted to Judaism, all the males would have been circumcised. This included infants who were at least eight days old. In Colossians 2: 9-12, the Apostle Paul compares the effect of circumcision with the effect of Baptism.

While there are no specific references to infant Baptism in the New Testament, there is every reason to believe that children and infants were included. As you will see when you read Pastor Kastens' article Infant Baptism in Early Church History, the witness of the early church fathers is very clear. Children and infants were included in Baptism.

From the link:

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals...nfant%20Baptism

That is one of the best defenses of infant baptism via the scriptures I have seen, even while it comes from a Lutheran!

Now I realize that a similar case from scripture has already be made in this thread, so I hope a r epresentation of it again from thia author will not be a boring read. It reminds me a little of a similar argument from scripture that proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Surely, the doctrine is strongly implied, but implied it is. I would submit that infant baptism is similarly implied. I especially like the comparison with the Supreme Court error that excludes the fetus from being considered a human person.

Whether the practice is right wrong one cannot deny that it is one of the many "doctrines of men" found in Romanism and as such it will be judged by God - 'Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted will be rooted up.'

Of course I would disagree with you here, the fact that the Church was established with the authority to make such determinations, the power to "bind and loose" in Matthew 16:18, through the awesome power of the "keys of the kingdom" but this goes down another rabbit trail.

Did the Church have the authority to determine the canon of scripture, yes or no?

Did the Church have the authority to determine the doctrine of the Trinity, yes or no?

I could go on and I am sure I would very soon run into a Church doctrine that you will say, "Whoooah horseeeeeee, not so fast!" right?

My point is, essential to this discussion is whether the Church had to authority to interpret from scripture, the intent of the Gospel of Christ. Does it or not? When did the Church loose it if not?

Yet all of these things were done by MEN! Ah yes, the "Doctrines of men" you rail against, yet the Church is lead by 11 apostles, soon expanded back to 13 with Paul being admitted, a determination without Christ telling to do so, that the authority is there before your eyes! The holy Spirit active here? If you say yes, how then your take on the determination of the doctrines concerning baptism by the Church?

William Putnam

Anyway, I am now wondering if we can find any Cbristian community that ever existed between Pentecost and, say, about 1600 or in the flowering of the Anabaptists around those times (I think they came on the scene as early as circa 1200 perhaps) that taught this baptismal doctrine - Adults only and those who profess the faith prior to their baptism, but also rebaptism if a person is a convert to their faith. It is a given that adults were the oustanding candidates for baptism in scripture aned had to profess a faith in Christ before they were baptized, but what I am curious about is, do we find any prohibition of infant baptism in defiance of the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox too, for that matter) in that 1600 year period?

As already mentioned the Christian community for three hundred years rejected the false teaching of "baptismal regeneration" - the error that led to infant baptism. During the "golden age" of Catholicism anyone who publicly dissented from any of the myriad false doctrines of the RCC was quickly dispatched into eternity via the sword, the stake or some other cruel and unusual punishment, i.e., disembowment, beheading, etc. Such folks didn't have much of an opportunity to write history.

Which I have just refuted, reducing it down to about 100 years after the end of the apostolic era!

Incidentally, I forgot about a couple of heresies that did indeed, contest infant baptism: The Waldenses and Catharists. in the middle ages. I hope you don't put too much store in this heresies!

And how quickly you allude to the so called "atrocities" of the Catholic Church! This discussion would be better served if your prejudices were not so easily exposed, sir.

William Putnam

Bottom line for me: Since we have a Church, including the Orthodox Church, that stood alone in practicing infant baptism, were they in error all that time?

The bottom line is - most certainly they were in error during that period...error is always error. Consistency in error does not rectify the wrong.

Therefore, Christ went back on his word, Holy Church wallowed in error for at least 1600 years before Luther, who continued to believe in infant baptism! If I were to come to that conclusion, I would abandon Christianity completely as a total error!

William Putnam

Did the holy Spirit allow then to wallow in that error for such a long period of time? This rapidly gets off-topic, as we would then be discussing the infallibility of the Church per Matthew 16:18, "...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory in the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." - Romans 9:22, 23

"And shall not God avenge His own elect, which day and night cry unto him, though he bear long with them?" Lk. 18:7

Paul was obviously speaking about the Catholic Church, right? Luke as well, or are they speaking of individual Christians, in the faith, but fall back into sin and are this condemned?

Nah, in your mind, it's the Catholic Church, plain as day! Right? WOW!

The corruptions of Romanism were finally exposed and denounced by her own during the Reformation and the glory of God was revealed as good men went about restoring ancient Christianity to Europe and beyond. The bondage of the RCC over the faithful was broken...forever amen.

From Lutheranism, who also believed in infant baptism, we have today, what is the present figure? 1,000? 10,000? 20,000, 30,000 individual non-Catholic denominations all spouting their version of the Gospel Message? Some baptize infants, some re-baptize adults from other denominations, some baptize not at all!

In my youth, the Evangelical Church I belonged to had a huge baptismal tank behind the row of seats where the pastor and church elders used to sit during services. I went to this church for about three years, and never, ever did I see a drop of water in that baptismal tank!

Excuse me, but from the time I entered the Naval service in 1947, I went on a quest, looking for Christ's Church. My momma used to say to me, "Son, join any church you want, but please, do not become a Catholic."

It was in that Church that I found the truth uncompromised and unfettered, complete and undiminished!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+

[Smalcald]

Acceptance of the gospel message is one of personal choice; the NT does not know of any examples of conversion by proxy.

No it is not. Baptism of a Christian child is not by proxy it is real. This is the basic difference and one that I pointed out earlier, faith is not a work, which is what you are making it out to be above, and what any concept, which makes baptism into a

[vox]

chrismarc

In Acts 2:38-39; 16:15,33; 18:8 (cf. 11:14), and 1 Cor 1:16 it is stated that an individual and his whole household were baptized. It would be hard to say this involved no small children.

Actually chrismarc it

Edited April 22, 2006 by vox

[chrismarc]

Silentprayer said,

I don't think Jesus wasted his time for no reason, while he himself was sinless,

he was still baptised.

He was showing us what we must do to be His disciple.