Being Baptised As Babies?

[Freaky Chik]

:huh:

Hi! So, what's with the belief of youse being baptised as babies??? I was baptised as a baby, but to me it meant jackall and it did not make me have a relationship with God. I became a christian when i was about 15... and I got "truly baptised" a couple of years later... which really DID mean something.

So obviously I believe in baptisms as an adult, or young person, or whatever. But not babies. But I would like to hear your beliefs/opinions/whatever.

I just cannot find any scripture in the bible that talks about baptisms as kids (only adults) or confirmations.

Questioningly yours, :)

[Dave]

Infant baptism actually means A LOT. However, the act in and of itself won't make you have a relationship with God. You have to accept the graces that God gives you through your baptism.

Anyway, let's start off by looking at Acts 2:38, where Peter tells the crowd to "repent, and let every one of you be baptized." Many think we must first repent and believe before being baptized, but that's not what it means.

To begin, let's briefly recall that the original Greek for the cited passage is "metanoesate kai baptistheto hekastos hymon". Here, an aorist active imperative (second person plural) verb states a condition (protasis) upon which the fulfillment (apodosis) of another verb in the aorist imperative (third person singular) depends, and hence the mood and person establishes the force of that second verb as "each one of you must be baptized." Furthermore, Peter establishes the partitive genitive pronoun, "hekastos hymon", as the subject of baptism, with "you" being in the plural.

What does this mean in plain English? Peter addresses the entire audience (2nd person plural imperative) with the message that, if YOU repent, then EACH ONE who is a part of you and yours (partitive genitive plural) must EACH be baptized (3rd person singular imperative). inDouche, he goes on immediately to confirm quite explicitly that the "promise is to you and to your children, and to those who are far off" (Acts 2:39).

That was a huge crowd, a "multitude" from the entire known world (Acts 2:6), that Peter addressed on the Pentecost; surely there people with small children and even infants in the crowd! If a parent with a small child heard and repented, then by the force of the Biblical text, both he and his small child would have been baptized ( "each one of you" ) that very day.

What's more, Peter deliberately tells the crowd that the promise of baptism and the Holy Spirit is not only for them and their children, but "also for those that are far off". What does this mean? Recall that the audience was comprised of devout Jews from around the Hellenistic world. Peter is telling them that not only are they and their children to be baptized, but also the members of their households ( "each one of you" ) that have remained at home, be it however far away.

Hence, Peter's call to baptism in Acts 2:38-39 is entirely consistent with the Biblical norm that when a head of a household converted, that person then had his or her children and entire household baptized into the faith.

Consider the case of Lydia and her household:

In Acts 16:14-15, we learn that a woman named Lydia heard the Gospel while she was by the riverside near Philippi, and the Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. The Bible goes on to say, without any further explanation, that Lydia and her household were baptized, and then Lydia begged that Paul and his companions stay with her. According to the Bible alone, and not any theological interpolations, Lydia believed, and thus she and her household were baptized. The Bible says nothing about whether or not the members of the household believed, or even heard the Gospel, prior to their baptism. All that we read is that the head of a household made a decision for Christ, and that as a result of that decision, she and her household were baptized. To say otherwise is to add to the Bible.

By the Bible alone, then, Lydia believed before she was baptized, while the rest of her household was simply baptized. It is important to note that sometimes the Bible makes it clear that Paul preached the Gospel to an inquirer AND his household before baptizing them (e.g., the Philippian Jailer, Acts 16:32-33). But in the case of Lydia, the Bible is states positively only that Paul converted Lydia and then baptized Lydia and her household.

Such is really not all that strange, however, for the Biblical (not to mention sociological) norm of the day was that the head of a household, the paterfamilias, made the decision regarding the beliefs and faith of those who dwelt under his (or her) roof. As Joshua proclaimed, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15).

Now consider Christian baptism while Christ still walked the earth:

Even at the very beginning of Jesus' public ministry, the disciples of Christ began performing Christian baptisms under the supervision of Jesus (Jn. 3:22, 4:1-2). Nonetheless, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that the early disciples were baptized without making a specific confession of faith, either in Jesus as the Christ, or in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How could the people being baptized at the beginning of Jesus' ministry have believed, in their hearts, that Jesus was the Christ, when even Peter and hence the rest of the Twelve Apostles had not yet confessed that Jesus was the Christ (cf. Luke 9:18-20)?

How could the people being baptized have at the beginning of Jesus' ministry possibly believed in the Crucified and Risen Christ when the crucifixion had not yet occurred? Clearly, those early disciples were being properly baptized into the people of God independent of any credal expression of belief in the Jesus as the Crucified and Risen Christ.

Jesus teaches that, "In truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit" (Jn. 3:5). On the other hand, Jesus also declares that small children can belong to the kingdom of God, and specifically commands that we not place any barriers in their way. When people tried to bring infants to Jesus, the disciples tried to stop them; Jesus, however, rebuked the disciples, saying: "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. In truth I tell you, anyone who does not welcome the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it" (Lk. 18:15-17).

As with Lydia and her household, the apostles baptized entire households on several occasions (Acts 10:48, 16:15, 16:32-33, 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16). Now, please note that God is not a Lord of confusion: if infant baptism were forbidden, then these passages would carefully note either that the children in these households were excluded from baptism, or that there were no children in any of these households. Moreover, we know that Paul, in his letters, sometimes addresses children as those who are numbered among the "saints" of the churches to which he is writing (e.g., Col. 3:20; cf. Col. 1:1 Eph. 6:1, cf. Eph. 1:1).

Also, remember that under the Old Covenant, if an adult (male) converts to Judaism, he is circumcised as an adult. But if he is born a Jew, then he is circumcised as an infant. Now, let us not forget that the Apostles themselves made it clear that Baptism functions as a sign of the New Covenant, just as circumcision had of the Old Covenant. inDouche, Paul pointedly reminds the Colossians that baptism has, for the New People of God, replaced the old sign of circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). Does Paul specifically exclude infant baptism in this discussion? No. inDouche, his analogy to the practice of circumcision implicitly establishes infant baptism as a norm for a mature Church in which believers themselves have children. And another thing--Paul raises the passage of the Red Sea as an archetype for baptism: "I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:1-2). This typological baptism, of course, pertained to all of the Israelites - men, women, children, and infants - who followed Moses out of bondage.

And consider these passages as well:

"It was for no reason except his own faithful love that he saved us, by means of the cleansing water of rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit" (Tit. 3:5)

"Baptism, which corresponds to , now SAVES you (emphasis mine), 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" (1 Pet. 3:21).

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3-4).

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27).

"And you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross" (Col. 2:12-14).

I hate to tell you this, Freaky, but in light of the above, your baptism as a baby was definitely valid and conferred grace, while what you describe as your "real" baptism was actually pointless and gave you no new grace.

[Chastisement]

Personally, I put more weight on my baptism, at three months of age to be more poient then even my confirmation, because it's what put me on the right track from day one, and it protected my soul in case I died before I coudl really say "Yeah, I accept you Jesus". Confirmation was simply me saying for myself that I would continue in the ways that Jesus laid out for us and to remain under the watchful eye of the Catholic Church.

But to each their own, I suppose, I was quite... well, "intune" with Jesus when I was a child, and my mother did tell me I had my HS enduced moments. So, infant baptism is really important and can be really special if treated properly.

Oh, and what Dave said was really good as well. :D

[PedroX]

Freaky,

Many Protestant "denominations" also practice infant baptism. Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans (Episcopalians) etc. They all believe that infant baptism confers grace (not salvation, in their case) and they baptise anyone who comes to the church as an adult and was not baptized as an infant. They do not rebaptize.

peace...

[Cure of Ars]

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. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:38-39)

The Bible talks about whole households being baptized in a lot of places. It can be assumed that babies are a part of households.

"After she and her household had been baptized, she offered us an invitation..." (Acts 16:15)

Paul talks about Baptism being the fulfillment of circumcision.

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And even when you were dead (in) transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions; (Col 2:11-13)

Circumcision for the Jews brings them into the family of Abraham. Like wise baptism brings us into the family of God. Circumcision is given to babies. Likewise Baptism is given to babies. The early church understood this. In fact they did not debate about baptizing babies instead they debated about baptizing on the 8th day. Because Circumcision happened on the 8th day.

If you look at my arguments it is clear that there is a reasonable arguments from the Bible for Baptizing Babies. Where in the Bible does it condemn baptizing babies? If being a part of the family of God is a free gift and there is nothing we can do to earn it then why can’t babies enter into the family of God? How do you know that you did not receive grace when you where Baptized? Just some questions to ponder.

Edited August 26, 2003 by Cure of Ars

[Norseman82]

FreakyChik,

Ask yourself this:

If all became sinners through Adam's disobedience (Romans 5:19), then what happens to infants who die before being able to accept Christ as their savior on their own?

[skuba steve]

Jesus didn't get baptised until he was 30.

Baptism is simply a public statement of your faith. It symbolises washing away your old, sinful nature and being born again in Christ, your heart made pure and free from sin.

I wasn't allowed to drive a car when i was a baby, simply because I would have had no idea what I was doing.

Hey Sammy!

[Donna]

Adam's inheritance to us was original sin.

Adam was made in the state of grace (also called habitual or sanctifying grace).

Every baby, save those such as John the Babptist and Jerimiah, were born with original sin.

Baptism removes original sin. It is a sacrament: A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace. Any other definition given it such as it being a warm fuzzy, or a simple "initiation" without the doctrine is heresy.

It is therefore, despicable, to neglect this, and to wilfully leave a child in this state.

Jesus did not need baptism: He is God.

[cmotherofpirl]

Jesus didn't need baptism, He is God. His Baptism was a proclamation of the beginning of his public ministry and the aproval of His Father. It was also a manifestion of the Trinity.

Baptism is not a symbol, it is a real action washing the stain of sin from our soul left there from the sin of Adam and Eve.

[cmotherofpirl]

Jesus was also born under the Old Covanant, he was circumcised, which means he was included in the people of Israel.

Johns baptism was a sign that one had converted one's heart and sought forgiveness of sins. It was a ritual purification.

It was not an actual Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Only Jesus could institute that.

[cmotherofpirl]

St Paul also says Baptism replaces circumcision which was done on the child's 8th day of life under the Old Covanant.

[skuba steve]

ummm... as far as i can see.. sprinkling water on a baby's head only makes the baby's head get wet...

the baby is still a sinner... the bible clearly states we are only made right before God if we believe with our hearts and confess with our mouths that Jesus died for our sins.

I haven't had many babies preaching the gospel to you lately...how about you...?

God has accounted for the fact that infants aren't able to do this liet alone understand what they are doing...

As for sprinkling water on their heads??? um... where is that in the bible?

And don't give me vague references... show me where Jesus commanded it...

[jasJis]

Hey ho Steve!

Glad to see you're here.

Do you need chapter and verse for each and every point?

Jesus is God. We can look to the OT and correlate what we find in the NT. Do you agree with that?

Do you need chapter and verse to show how God knows us before we are even born?

Do you need chapter and verse to show how parents have authority over their children?

Do you need chapter and verse to show how parents, in obedience to God, brought their children to the Temple to be blessed by God, and to be circumsised as a mark of being one of God's children?

Do you need chapter and verse in the NT where Baptism is equated with being marked as one of God's children?

Do you need chapter and verse where Jesus says we only need the faith of a child and to not suffer the children to come to him?

Do you need chapter and verse where entire households were baptized?

Since historical record shows us that children were baptized since the beginning of the Chruch, please provide chapter and verse that commands that children should not be Baptized.

Please provide teachings of the Chruch before the year 1200 that restricted children from Baptism.

Please provide chapter and verse, or other Church writings that says we have to "EARN" the right to be Baptized with some act of faith by the individual itself.

"Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

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."

I can provide C&V for all the points I made. If you really want them, I will provide them. If you are just trying to make the point that Catholics do things that aren't Biblical, you haven't made that point.

Edited August 26, 2003 by jasJis

[Jake Huether]

Every baby, save those such as John the Babptist and Jerimiah, were born with original sin.

Was John the Baptist and Jerimiah born without original sin? I didn't know. Just curious. They definitly weren't concieved without original sin. But born? Hmmm.

Skuba and Freaky - Why were infants circumcised, while the adults had to confess their faith in God?

Also, there are plenty of Biblical references to Christ HEALING people based on the faith of someone else (i.e. the Centurion and his slave). Wouldn't it be fitting for God to accept an infant into his family based on the faith of the Parents?

It's also noteworthy that there is evidendence of infant baptism written about in the 2nd centurly - which means it must have been happening BEFORE then. Was the Church wrong even at that early a stage?

[Norseman82]

God has accounted for the fact that infants aren't able to do this liet alone understand what they are doing...

And don't give me vague references... show me where Jesus commanded it...

And don't give me vague references... show me where Jesus commanded it...

Why??????

God has accounted for the fact that infants aren't able to do this liet alone understand what they are doing...

What do you base that on???? As you would say "And don't give me vague references".....