Infant Baptism?

[Mr. Mask]

Baptism as an adult, when they understand what they're doing and are making a commitment to God--I think that one is more important.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

My opinion on the matter is that infant baptism opens the gates to a person so that they are saturated in the Lord's good graces from early on. That way their soul is God's even before they can make a choice about it, and you do them a good favour by marking them with the Holy Spirit from an early age.

Now, down to the facts. It is true that nowhere does it say in the Bible explicitly that infants or children below the age of reason were baptised. But in places it does say here and there that this person or that and his household were baptised. A household generally includes his family. And his family would generally include his children.

Also, if infants were not meant to be baptised under the New Covenant, why were infants meant to be circumcised under the Old Covenant? The New Testament is a reflection of the Old. It seems odd that infants should be accepted under the Old but not under the New.

And considering that baptism washes away original sin, one would think it's a bathing that should be done as soon as possible, no? Parents play a pivotal role in their children's lives in all other manners. Why not bring them into the faith from an early age? Baptism is meant to initiate a child and begin them on the path to Heaven.

 

[Patriot]

Now, down to the facts. It is true that nowhere does it say in the Bible explicitly that infants or children below the age of reason were baptised. But in places it does say here and there that this person or that and his household were baptised. A household generally includes his family. And his family would generally include his children.

But is it safe to assume that? At best, it is unknown. All of the specific examples we see of people being baptized are adults.

Also, if infants were not meant to be baptised under the New Covenant, why were infants meant to be circumcised under the Old Covenant? The New Testament is a reflection of the Old. It seems odd that infants should be accepted under the Old but not under the New.

Because one was born into the Old Covenant, so to speak. If you were a descendant of Abraham you were under the Old Covenant. There were exceptions for converts, but they would have to become circumcised after converting. How does one become a part of the New Covenant? Through repentance. One must be "born again". You wouldn't circumcise a baby in the womb, why would you baptize a person before they have been born again?

And considering that baptism washes away original sin, one would think it's a bathing that should be done as soon as possible, no?

Is there a scripture reference for this idea that it washes away original sin?

Parents play a pivotal role in their children's lives in all other manners. Why not bring them into the faith from an early age?

I totally agree and intend to raise my children in the faith, but I believe that baptism is a choice that they will have to make for themselves.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

The apologists at Catholic Answers can probably answer your questions more eloquently and completely than I ever could.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

The long and skinny of it being: Christ called the children to come to Him. They don't have to be of the age of reason.

The Old Covenant and the New one are types of each other. The Old is a shadow of the New. It does not make sense for the New to be missing a parallel to the Old since the New is the fuller version of the Old.

Whole families were baptised by Paul, while never once is it said in the Bible that a child must "come to reason" then be baptised.

Furthermore, the Tradition the Apostles passed on to future generations outside of Scripture shows overwhelmingly infant baptism is the norm. One of the most prominent is that of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, who, since the infancy (pardon) of Christianity have been baptising infants.

The only people in history to oppose infant baptism were the Cathars, the Anabaptists, and modern fundamentalist Protestants.

And they do so forgetting that infants are incapable of faith. Many die before they are capable of the age of reason, and therefore are incapable of making a declaration of faith. What is their fate? Hell?

I am not saying knowing Christ as Lord and Saviour is a bad thing. I am glad fundamentalists want their children to know Christ. But their approach to baptism and salvation is not what the Apostles taught, is not what Christ taught, and leaves out a large portion of people who are incapable of meeting their demands (like infants, and the mentally disabled).

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

 

[Patriot]

The long and skinny of it being: Christ called the children to come to Him. They don't have to be of the age of reason.

I never said they had to be.

The Old Covenant and the New one are types of each other. The Old is a shadow of the New. It does not make sense for the New to be missing a parallel to the Old since the New is the fuller version of the Old.

According to my explanation in my previous post, explain how something is missing.

Whole families were baptised by Paul, while never once is it said in the Bible that a child must "come to reason" then be baptised.

So you are making theology based on the absence of something in Scripture?

Furthermore, the Tradition the Apostles passed on to future generations outside of Scripture shows overwhelmingly infant baptism is the norm. One of the most prominent is that of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, who, since the infancy (pardon) of Christianity have been baptising infants.

I don't hold to Catholic tradition.

The only people in history to oppose infant baptism were the Cathars, the Anabaptists, and modern fundamentalist Protestants.

And they do so forgetting that infants are incapable of faith. Many die before they are capable of the age of reason, and therefore are incapable of making a declaration of faith. What is their fate? Hell?

Based on other verses in the Bible they believe that children who die before they are capable of making a decision go to heaven. That being said, baptism does not save so even if their fate was hell if they weren't baptized, baptizing them would not change it.

I am not saying knowing Christ as Lord and Saviour is a bad thing. I am glad fundamentalists want their children to know Christ. But their approach to baptism and salvation is not what the Apostles taught, is not what Christ taught, and leaves out a large portion of people who are incapable of meeting their demands (like infants, and the mentally disabled).

This is a bit of a wild accusation. Please show me in Scripture where the Apostles and Christ taught to baptize infants.

 

[Lloren]

Please show me in Scripture where the Apostles and Christ taught to baptize infants.

I think he already did above. Christ implied the children to come. Paul and Peter talked about salvation and baptism being for their whole family and household.

I did like the point Ghenghis made about how a believer's baptism truly does leave out those (infants, mentally disabled) who can't reach some mental hurdle (ability to chose - free will etc) of their own volition.

The other part of it that the choice implies a full range of understanding of what they are doing. Do Christians know what it means fully when they are baptized? If they don't, is it nullified? I don't want to derail, but it might be a good discussion if we are looking at choice to discuss "what must be chosen (understood)?" in order to be baptized? I'm interested.

 

[Abba San]

For me the question is NOT did they baptize infants in the NT - I think they did (at least that is my reading of Scripture). The underlying issue is do you have to be baptized in order to be saved. Most Protestants would say, no - you don't; while most Catholics would say, yes - you do. I think that is why there is an emphasis on infant baptism.

Most Protestant groups practice some form of welcoming an infant into the Christian community - christening or dedication - but it is with the understanding that they need to come to a time when they accept Christ for themselves. It cannot be foisted upon them via a church ritual they had no say so in.

 

[Patriot]

I think he already did above. Christ implied the children to come.

No word about baptism.

Paul and Peter talked about salvation and baptism being for their whole family and household.

Households were baptized, but that is ambiguous at best. Were there children in those households? If there were, were they included in the baptism or was it similar to how when they counted people for the feeding of the 5000 it was just a count of the men? I'm not saying it is beyond the realm of possibility, I'm just wondering why we are building a doctrine on something so vague.

 

[Lloren]

No word about baptism.


Households were baptized, but that is ambiguous at best. Were there children in those households? If there were, were they included in the baptism or was it similar to how when they counted people for the feeding of the 5000 it was just a count of the men? I'm not saying it is beyond the realm of possibility, I'm just wondering why we are building a doctrine on something so vague.

You are correct and we shouldn't make assumptions about things in the Bible, but we do. The Bible doesn't say anything about baptizing teenagers or kids or elderly, but we assume when they Christ said "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations; baptize them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;." he really means everyone and there is no exclusionary clause for little kids or these people or whomever.

I love this topic and I can appreciate both interpretations of timing (believers and infants) for baptism, but I also agree that sacerdotalism (baptism as a salvific act) is incorrect because the Bible is clear that we are saved by grace through faith alone.

 

[Patriot]

You are correct and we shouldn't make assumptions about things in the Bible, but we do. The Bible doesn't say anything about baptizing teenagers or kids or elderly, but we assume when they Christ said "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations; baptize them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;." he really means everyone and there is no exclusionary clause for little kids or these people or whomever.

Why does "making disciples" get a free pass where "baptizing" does not? It makes no sense to try to make a disciple out of an infant yet that is glossed right over and we move right on to baptism.

I love this topic and I can appreciate both interpretations of timing (believers and infants) for baptism, but I also agree that sacerdotalism (baptism as a salvific act) is incorrect because the Bible is clear that we are saved by grace through faith alone.

Agreed. I don't think anyone is going to hell for being baptized as an infant. Or vice versa. Or for not being baptized at all.

 

[Abba San]

I love this topic and I can appreciate both interpretations of timing (believers and infants) for baptism, but I also agree that sacerdotalism (baptism as a salvific act) is incorrect because the Bible is clear that we are saved by grace through faith alone.

Amen.

 

[cadeyrn]

Here are a few points I would like to add to this discussion:

1. I think we all need to realize that as important as baptism is within the Christian life, it is one subject that the Bible has not addressed as fully as we would like. There are certain things that Scripture does make clear about it. Here are a limited few example: a) we are to do it (Matt 28:19), b) it is to be done in the threefold name of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Matt 28:19), and c) baptism unites all believers (1 Corinthians 12:13).

2. There is only one baptism. Ephesians 4 states this clearly. I don't want to debate the finer points of this passage; I don't think it is necessary here. However I think it is important to realize that since the Bible is not clear on all the particulars concerning baptism, we need to give each other some leeway here. That is to say, there are very compelling arguments for and against both believer's and infant baptism. Although I am a proponent of believer's baptism, and could not in good conscience baptize an infant, I do not see a need to re-baptize someone who was baptized as an infant assuming they were baptized in a Trinitarian, Bible believing church.

3. Believer's baptism has been held by Christians throughout the history of the story church (contra GhengosKhan44). As an example, Tertullian was against baptizing infants (On Baptism Chapter XVIII). Other examples in the early church are the Didache and Chrysostom (I do not remember the references for this at the moment, but could work on finding them if need be). There are many others. If you would like more examples, I would be happy to look them up.

Side note: I had many interruptions while writing this. I read through it at the end, but it is possible I missed something that doesn't make sense to everyone else. Please let me know if that is the case and I will be happy to clarify.

 

[rev. Jim]

To answer this question, one must ask another question: What is the purpose of the baptism?

If the purpose of the baptism (in water) is for the sanctification of the infant/person/whatever. Then it is not sufficient because only Christ can do this.
If it is for some other purpose, such as a ritual to re-affirm one's faith, than for an infant that is rather pointless since the infant will not understand it in the first place.

The most important point to understand here is that no matter how much water is used, it can never cleanse someone of sins. There is only one substance that can do that, and it is the blood of Jesus Christ. This is why John stated several times that Jesus came to give us a greater baptism then he (john) ever could.

So then this begs the question: why did Jesus let John baptize Him in water?
Because He (Jesus) had not yet died for our sins and therefore no second baptism was available for men yet.

I do not perform infant baptisms, for the reasons stated above.
Does this mean baptism is useless? Not at all, but I know that it can be performed for the wrong reasons, which make it useless in those scenarios.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Patriot, read the article I gave a link to, then get back to me.

I did like the point Ghenghis made about how a believer's baptism truly does leave out those (infants, mentally disabled) who can't reach some mental hurdle (ability to chose - free will etc) of their own volition.

Not I. The writer of this article. And not he, but the Catholic Church from where he learnt it.

And indeed, not us, but Christ. For we are the body of Christ. (But of course, that's only assuming you believe us. )

I am only the messenger.

If the purpose of the baptism (in water) is for the sanctification of the infant/person/whatever. Then it is not sufficient because only Christ can do this.

Excuse me, Reverend, but just because Christ uses means other than Himself to sanctify does not mean He is not sufficient. It means He operates through these things. Just as He operates through us to preach the Good News, and He operates through the Bible to let them know about His plan for salvation.

So Christ can operate through the waters of baptism to bring grace and wash away sin, because Christ is capable of using things other than Himself to give us grace. Otherwise, you'd be out of a job. :/

The most important point to understand here is that no matter how much water is used, it can never cleanse someone of sins. There is only one substance that can do that, and it is the blood of Jesus Christ. This is why John stated several times that Jesus came to give us a greater baptism then he (john) ever could.

You don't think it could have had anything to do with the fact that John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, which cannot give life but only forgive sins (kind of like the Catholic sacrament of reconciliation)?

If Christ's baptism, with "fire and the Holy Spirit", is only a rite of initiation, then how is it more powerful than John's? If there were not something greater about Christian baptism, why then did the Apostle Paul re-baptise the disciples of John?

May want to re-read Acts 19:1-5 again, your reverence.

You may also want to read the Church Fathers, and the history of Christianity.

 

[Abba San]

Please, Genghis, no name calling. I'm not sure Lloren is a Reverend, but "your reverence" in referring to Lloren is name calling. Present your views. It is okay to disagree. But we don't stoop to name calling.

I disagree with your interpretations of and conclusions from various passages, and you disagree with mine...that's okay. Your views seem to be consistent with orthodox Catholicism. Many of us do not hold those views. I don't mind your opinions or your posts. Each person in these forums is allowed their view without being called names. So let's not do that.

 

[Patriot]

Patriot, read the article I gave a link to, then get back to me.

I already did. Many of the points they make I've already addressed (since you and others have made them here). Is there something specific you would like me to focus on?

 

[rev. Jim]

I believe Mr. Khan has dual-quoted both Llorens post and my own, which has introduced some confusion: however I do thank you for your questions because I realize I may not have been very detailed in my last post because I was a bit pressed for time, so I will correct that oversight now.

The blood of Christ is the only thing which can save a person... if we do not agree on this, then reading the rest of what is below will not do any good.

Baptism in water is nothing more than an outward ritual of what Christ has done on the inside of a person through the Holy Spirit. I do not need to read extra-Biblical texts in order to know this. The Bible itself makes it quite clear.

In John 1: John the Baptist himself states it, and it is also referenced many times throughout the New Testament.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the greater baptism which only Jesus can bring a person and which can only come through the divine righteousness which He offers. Baptism itself does not save a soul, but it is an evidence and a proclamation of what Jesus has done for them.
Before He died, it indeed was a baptism of repentance, a sign of faith because let us not forget that John was not just baptizing people, but he was preaching Jesus to them.

Can Christ use other people? Absolutely! But He uses them to lead people to Himself -- Again it is all about Christ alone and His completed work, for there is none other by which anyone can be saved.

 

[GenghisKhan44]

Please, Genghis, no name calling. I'm not sure Lloren is a Reverend, but "your reverence" in referring to Lloren is name calling. Present your views. It is okay to disagree. But we don't stoop to name calling.

I was replying to Reverend Jim. -_-

I suppose I could have made that clearer; but after Lloren's post I was quoting Rev Jim.

The blood of Christ is the only thing which can save a person... if we do not agree on this, then reading the rest of what is below will not do any good.

Reverend, slogans clear up nothing. I still do not know what you mean by "the blood of Christ", nor any attributes you give to it. So I still do not know your position (although I can guess).

Here is how the Catholic Church defines grace, and the role grace plays in justification, and how justification is carried out:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God....

1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism:34

But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.35

1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ's Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:36

[God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.37

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.39

Emphasis mine.

Can we agree on these definitions for grace and justification?

Baptism in water is nothing more than an outward ritual of what Christ has done on the inside of a person through the Holy Spirit. I do not need to read extra-Biblical texts in order to know this.

Oh, really?

So those who lived alongside the Apostles, alongside Jesus, alongside the earliest of the early Christians can offer you no practical input at all?

Hippolytus of Rome had this to say:"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

How about Origen, who wrote in 244 in his homily on the Epistle to the Romans: "For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too."

Justin Martyr wrote this in his First Apology sometime between 110 and 165: "And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..."

Justin says to Trypho, also, of Christ: “He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression. For God, wishing both angels and men, who were endowed with freewill, and at their own disposal, to do whatever He had strengthened each to do, made them so, that if they chose the things acceptable to Himself, He would keep them free from death and from punishment; but that if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit.” (c. 155 AD)

Now, I understand you may not agree with me. But these are what the EARLY CHRISTIANS believed. This was before the Roman Empire accepted us in the 300s, so there's no taint from them.

Would you go so far as to defy what has been taught since the beginning?

In John 1: John the Baptist himself states it, and it is also referenced many times throughout the New Testament.

No, the Apostle doesn't say this. He does, however, say this:
[QUOTE KJV. John 1:12-13]...to them gave [H]e power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.[/QUOTE]

So, clearly, the blood of Christ is not the source of new birth?

Of course Christ's death and resurrection are the source of our birth to new life. But what, then, does this passage mean?

Just what it says. We are not made children of God, adopted sons, by our own will, nor by our desires and passions, nor by birth (unlike the Jewish covenant). We are made children of God by God.

That, therefore, would render being born again not as an intellectual assent to God, a "testimony", but an action in which GOD gives us the grace. That is what the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, and many Protestant churches teaches baptism is - GOD's outpouring of grace to us. HIS action. Not ours. His.

I am not justifying baptism just here. But I am saying we are not justified by our own acceptance of Christ, and we receive no grace from that in and of itself.

Now, as for your section of John "I baptise with water, but He will baptise with the Holy Spirit", I assume? Do note that John is not God and Jesus is. So whose word is more authoritative? Jesus's, of course.

And what does Jesus say?

Mark 16:15-16: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I cannot say what the fate of an unbaptised person is. But I do know that Christ commanded us that they should believe AND be baptised. Their soul may not be in jeopardy if you have taught them to believe and have not baptised them. But since you do not follow Christ's commandment (as John also tells us to do), yours may be.

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I say this to you as someone who is willing to die for you: Christ commanded us to baptise in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, then to teach them. Follow His commandments. As a pastor, you have been charged, rightly or wrongly, with care for Christian children and adults. If you do not baptise them, you disobey the Lord's explicit commands to your own peril, if not theirs. Do you not trust Our Lord enough to believe that whatever baptism does, it is enough that you do it, and in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the greater baptism which only Jesus can bring a person and which can only come through the divine righteousness which He offers. Baptism itself does not save a soul, but it is an evidence and a proclamation of what Jesus has done for them.

But this is one and the same baptism. John described a baptism in the Holy Spirit, and Jesus also described a baptism, and only one: in water, in His, the Father's, and the Holy Ghost's name. In the New Testament, there is no other baptism than the one Jesus tells His disciples, and John's baptism of repentance.

To baptise meant in Greek and English to immerse, dip, or steep in water. So Jesus's baptism was, then and now, a baptism of water and of the Holy Spirit.

Before He died, it indeed was a baptism of repentance, a sign of faith because let us not forget that John was not just baptizing people, but he was preaching Jesus to them.

Christ's baptism and John's are different baptisms altogether. John did not baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And Jesus commissioned baptism for the conversion of souls - or as some say, for the rebirth of souls.

Can Christ use other people? Absolutely! But He uses them to lead people to Himself -- Again it is all about Christ alone and His completed work, for there is none other by which anyone can be saved.

Exactly. But in point of fact, He uses people and things other than Himself. Read that again. He uses people and things other than Himself to lead us to our salvation.

God made the Earth and the world and all the things in the world are very good. And all of the goodness of the world is made to lead us back to Him.

That is the purpose of the sacrament of baptism, or any sacrament. To lead us back to God. For a sacrament makes something sacred. To make it sacred is to make it holy, as God is holy.

 

[Abba San]

...and again I say, Amen.

edit - to clarify, when I posted this, my Amen was to Rev Jim's post. I didn't see the intervening post.

 

[Pheonix28]

There is no way to justify infant baptism via the Bible. You can add your own "interpretation", however, I think we've made it clear that the Bible does not specifically mention infant baptism. If it isn't specifically mentioned, then you can't justify it. If you want to use the "early church" for your justification, that's one thing. But please, lets stop trying to add our own "interpretation" and claim that infant baptism is biblically supported.