Let's Talk About Infant Baptism

[Brother Adam]

He never commanded us NOT to baptize them...

He didn't command me not to wear a cape and jump of my garage roof (shudders at old memories) either, but I don't think he wants me to.

[hyperdulia again]

why would God exclude infants from the new covenant?

if baptism meant what protestants think it does, then there is no reason to baptise infants, but baptism isn't symbolic. it isnn't confirmation of one's faith. it is the start of the christian life, it is snatching a person from the jaws of hell.

Edited July 23, 2003 by hyperdulia again

[Chrysologus]

Jesus didn't baptize anybody that we know of.

The fact is that the Bible doesn't say explicitely either way, so if you're a non-Catholic who believes in sola scriptura, then I don't see how you can justify attacking infant baptism, even if your own community doesn't practice it. On the other hand, sacred tradition is much more explicit about infant baptism: it is universally accepted by the church fathers. Consequently Catholics, and most Protestants, baptize babies. Could it really be that 90% of Christendom has it so wrong for so long?

[Jake Huether]

He never told me that green peas were good for me either. But they are.

So, what's your point?

My point is just that: there's a lot that Christ "didn't" tell us in the Bible. In fact, St. John goes on to tell us at the end of his Gospel that if everything Jesus did was recorded in a book, there wouldn't be room on the entire earth to house them!

So, since Jesus didn't tell us specifically to do it or not, why do you choose to NOT do so? What was the compelling evidence that spoke to you and told you that baptism of infants can be compared to jumping off a roof, instead of eating green peas?

My evidence is the Church. We know that Christ explained it to the Apostles, whether it was written or not, because the Apostles did it! And the successors of the Apostles did it too! The early Church did it for several centuries uninterupted (oh, I'm sure there were scuffles - I'm talking major dissagreements).

[mustbenothing]

Though a Reformed Christian, I also affirm the doctrine of infant baptism.

(mulls) This seems that a person's professed faith in Christ is required, not the faith of someone else on one's behalf.

(Me) Colossians 2:11-12

11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

"You were circumcised... having been buried with him in baptism." In other words, they were circumcised by being baptized. This proves that, in Paul's thought, the covenantal significance of circumcision is completely replaced by baptism.

By the parallel just explained, the argument you make here against infant baptism would also work against infant circumcision. However, we all know that children were circumcised on account of their parent's faith. Therefore, this must be a bad argument.

(marielapin) In this passage Christ speaks plainly and says that UNBELIEF is sufficient to incur damnation but that FAITH does NOT insure salvation unless it is accompanied by baptism.

(Me) I would say that we should be careful to distinguish between "cannots" and the ordinary course of salvation. The thief on the cross was not baptized, but was in paradise with Christ. Therefore, on account of a number of Biblical passages, we can say that baptism is an essential part of the ordinary conversion/salvation process. However, exceptions are possible.

(Jake Huether) mmm... He did say so. I think the text was pointed out to you befor. "Go unto all nations..." Also, the fact that the Apostles baptized several HOUSEHOLDS.

(Me) The Acts 16 case of Lydia is a perfect illustration, because she was the only member of her household who had faith, and yet the entire household was baptized. This clearly shows that entire households enter the New Covenant, just as in the Old Covenant. The same is true of the jailer, whose story is also found in Acts 16.

Acts 16:14-15

14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.

15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:30-34

30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.

33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Another key text that I don't think has been raised is 1 Corinthians 7:14, which explicitly states that the entire household enters the covenant by the faith of one.

1 Corinthians 7:14

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

[ReformationNow]

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."

Actually, it doesn't. Protestants believe that only those who PROFESS belief are to be baptized. Can a person make a false profession? Sure. Does this in any way prove 'believer's baptism invalid'? No. It decidedly does not. This is merely faulty logic on display.

[ReformationNow]

"People who do not baptize infants are keeping the infants from Christ, and have shallow knowledge of what Christianity is about."

Jesus Blessed the Little Children. He didn't baptize them and never commanded that they be baptized. Baptists bring their children before the church to be dedicated before the Lord.

Jesus never baptized anyone.

[Katholikos]

circumcision signified God's relationship with the Jews, and was mandated by God. Of course it wasn't meaningless.

Baptism replaced circumcision as a rite of initiation. Circumcision signifies entrance into the People of God, called Israel, under the Old Covenent. It makes a male child (or adult) a Jew. Baptism (among other things) signifies entrance into the People of God, called the New Israel or the Catholic Church, under the New Covenant. It makes a child (or adult) a Catholic Christian, a member of God's family. Sixteen centuries later, the first Protestant appeared. Those Protestants who baptize their children (and that is the majority) make them Christian.

If God wanted every baby born into a Christian home to be baptized, I think he would have said so.

Three points:

(1) There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible is the inspired Word of God other than the declaration of the Catholic Church, which you reject. The most you can say is, "I believe it because I believe it." I accept the word of the Church founded by Christ and believe the Bible because the Church , which speaks for God, declares that these 73 writings -- and no others -- are the inspired Word of God. Like St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.), "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church," (Letter to Mani).

There is no "inspired" table of contents. You accept the table of contents of the NT decreed by the Catholic Church and the table of contents of the OT decreed by Martin Luther. I accept the Church's decree for both the OT and NT and reject Luther's. Martin Luther did not speak for God -- the Church founded by Christ speaks for Him. Christ and His Church are one and the same (see, for example, Acts 9:1-5). When you persecute the Church, you are persecuting Christ Himself. When you reject the Church, you are rejecting Christ Himself (Lk 10:16).

(2) The NT is not an instruction book for Christianity. That's apparent to anyone who reads it objectively.

(3) The Catholic Church received the Revelation of God through the Apostles. She speaks for God (who hears you hears me, Lk 10:16), and she says babies are to be baptized.

God did speak through His Church -- you just aren't listening.

Ave Cor Mariae

P.S. Don't you want the book "95 Reasons for Becoming or Remaining Catholic" written by the ex-Presbyterian pastor? I haven't received your address. You can order it from http://www.chnetwork.org, if you prefer.

[Katholikos]

Jesus Blessed the Little Children. He didn't baptize them and never commanded that they be baptized. Baptists bring their children before the church to be dedicated before the Lord.

Now there's a New Testament practice for you!

Please give us the NT citation where a Christian ever "brought his child(ren) before the church to have them dedicated before the Lord." By whom? The Protestant minister! There were no "ministers" --only priests -- until the 16th century. Yep, that's biblical all right. Baptists follow the Bible only, right?

The New Testament is not an instruction book for Christianity, as Protestants have tried to twist it.

The New Testament is a written record of the first 100 years or so of the spiritual life of the newborn Catholic Church, the New Israel.

The Catholic Church is nearly four centuries older than the NT or the Bible.

The Catholic Church is not based on the NT -- rather, the NT is based on the organic, living, teaching Catholic Church.

JMJ Jay

Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

[cmotherofpirl]

Jesus never baptized anyone.

How do you know?

[Jake Huether]

That's right!

Doesn't St. John tell us at the end of his Gospel that Jesus did MANY other things that AREN'T written down.

If fact, Jesus did so many other things, that if they were all written down, the ENTIRE EARTH wouldn't hold the books!

[cmotherofpirl]

If Jesus did everything listed and only everything listed in the New Testament it would encompass several months of time, primarily spent in hiking around. I doubt if a scribe followed him around with a quill in hand. But the NT covered a timespan of several years.

So if you limit yourself to exactly what is written, you are missing a great deal of christianity. What your missing is the Catholic Church. You are watching a play in a theater, a frozen section of time, instead of being with the author in his home.

[Aloysius]

iiiinteresting debate.. i guess i'll throw my idea into the ring

Jesus said one must be born of water and the spirit.

therefore, in baptism they are born of water, in confirmation they are born in the spirit.

in the NT alot o ppl took baptism and confirmation at the same time, because they were adults, but as the generations moved on the children of the baptized where thus baptized in awaiting their proffesion and their taking for their own the parent's faith-- their confirmation

in Holy Mother Church, we still baptize and confirm at the same time those who are old enough to profess their faith on their own.

He commanded to baptize in the NAME of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

in the Bible, a name represents a very essence, the whole person

therefore in baptism God comes into us, the trinitarian GOD!!! THE LORD!

that includes Jesus

let the children come to Him, and do not hinder them

There is absolutely NO reason not to baptize a child to make him a child of God with the Holy Trinity living in him and then have him complete that faith started by their parents in confirmation

that's my 2 cents

PEACE!