Baptism

[NewReformation]

Ok, this came up in the "What I Believe" thread.

Baptism is one major sticky point for me when looking at the Catholic Church. I believe that Baptism is intended for believers only when looking at Scripture. Any claim to infant baptism being Biblical must either A)be inferred into Scripture(as Presbyterians do), or B)point to Church tradition for proof. I reject A outright. Church tradition tends not to hold much water with me in most cases. Why? Well, from my readings of the early church fathers, they frequently disagreed seemingly on different issues. So to take the writings of the early church fathers and point to them for proof positive for a tradition or doctrine can be a double-edged sword.

It would seem that every instance of Baptism we see in Scripture, it's being done for those who believe. In the case of the Philippian Jailer, it is pointed to by some that his household was baptized. But really, there's no evidence that his household consisted of infants in Scripture, nor do we find that any person who did not believe was baptized. What we do find is that the Apostles preached to the household, and then the household was baptized. If we can infer anything here, it is that the household was baptized after coming to belief after the preaching.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1078630' date='Sep 29 2006, 01:59 AM']
Ok, this came up in the "What I Believe" thread.

Baptism is one major sticky point for me when looking at the Catholic Church. I believe that Baptism is intended for believers only when looking at Scripture. Any claim to infant baptism being Biblical must either A)be inferred into Scripture(as Presbyterians do), or B)point to Church tradition for proof. I reject A outright. Church tradition tends not to hold much water with me in most cases. Why? Well, from my readings of the early church fathers, they frequently disagreed seemingly on different issues. So to take the writings of the early church fathers and point to them for proof positive for a tradition or doctrine can be a double-edged sword.

It would seem that every instance of Baptism we see in Scripture, it's being done for those who believe. In the case of the Philippian Jailer, it is pointed to by some that his household was baptized. But really, there's no evidence that his household consisted of infants in Scripture, nor do we find that any person who did not believe was baptized. What we do find is that the Apostles preached to the household, and then the household was baptized. If we can infer anything here, it is that the household was baptized after coming to belief after the preaching.
[/quote]

I could give you a quick 'copy and paste' answer to this question, but you don't deserve that. I'd love to flesh this out, but it will take a little bit. I completely see and sympathize where you are coming from (I was there once myself as a convert), but there are a lot of issues to address, from the sufficiency of the scriptures, to authority, to tradition, to covenant theology, and so on. So, if you are in it for the long hull, so am I. Let me know if you want me to give a full, complete answer and I will, it will take some time to address though.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1078630' date='Sep 28 2006, 11:59 PM']
Ok, this came up in the "What I Believe" thread.

Baptism is one major sticky point for me when looking at the Catholic Church. I believe that Baptism is intended for believers only when looking at Scripture. Any claim to infant baptism being Biblical must either A)be inferred into Scripture(as Presbyterians do), or B)point to Church tradition for proof. I reject A outright. Church tradition tends not to hold much water with me in most cases. Why? Well, from my readings of the early church fathers, they frequently disagreed seemingly on different issues. So to take the writings of the early church fathers and point to them for proof positive for a tradition or doctrine can be a double-edged sword.

It would seem that every instance of Baptism we see in Scripture, it's being done for those who believe. In the case of the Philippian Jailer, it is pointed to by some that his household was baptized. But really, there's no evidence that his household consisted of infants in Scripture, nor do we find that any person who did not believe was baptized. What we do find is that the Apostles preached to the household, and then the household was baptized. If we can infer anything here, it is that the household was baptized after coming to belief after the preaching.
[/quote]

Your argument is well reasoned. I sympathize with the points you make.

I would like to start by saying that Baptism is possible on infants not despite a lack of faith, but in virtue of the faith of the parents (which is why it's truly a sad case that so many parents don't really care about raising their children in the faith). The Church baptizes infants because she believes that, since God entrusts parents with the wellbeing of their children, He must also give them the authority to take care of the inestimably more important matter of their salvation. Thus, the parents' faith is substituted for the child's. The decision to accept salvation, like the decision to accept anything else at that stage of development, is deferred to the parents.

I'd like to get your feelings on this first, before jumping into anything else.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1078630' date='Sep 28 2006, 10:59 PM']
Church tradition tends not to hold much water with me in most cases.[/quote]
Pun intended?

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1078653' date='Sep 28 2006, 11:18 PM']
Your argument is well reasoned. I sympathize with the points you make.

I would like to start by saying that Baptism is possible on infants not despite a lack of faith, but in virtue of the faith of the parents (which is why it's truly a sad case that so many parents don't really care about raising their children in the faith). The Church baptizes infants because she believes that, since God entrusts parents with the wellbeing of their children, He must also give them the authority to take care of the inestimably more important matter of their salvation. Thus, the parents' faith is substituted for the child's. The decision to accept salvation, like the decision to accept anything else at that stage of development, is deferred to the parents.

I'd like to get your feelings on this first, before jumping into anything else.
[/quote]
Interesting, however, the idea that a parent's faith can be sufficient to baptize a child is a foreign concept to me. Not that I haven't heard it before, but it's something that's just completely foreign to the Baptist way of thinking. It doesn't necessarily follow that God will allow that faith to be transferred(trying to think of the right word here, and that's not it) to the child. Infant Baptism, in some cases, sounds almost like a Baptist dedication of a baby. Baptists, often when they have a child, will have a special thing after a service in front of the congregation with the pastor, where the pastor and family will pray over the child, and dedicate the child to God in hopes that when the child grows older, they will come to saving knowledge of Christ.

Now, as a further question before I potentially stick my foot in my mouth: Are cradle Catholics misguided in the notion that their baptism as a child is sufficient for their standing with God?

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1078643' date='Sep 28 2006, 11:12 PM']
I could give you a quick 'copy and paste' answer to this question, but you don't deserve that. I'd love to flesh this out, but it will take a little bit. I completely see and sympathize where you are coming from (I was there once myself as a convert), but there are a lot of issues to address, from the sufficiency of the scriptures, to authority, to tradition, to covenant theology, and so on. So, if you are in it for the long hull, so am I. Let me know if you want me to give a full, complete answer and I will, it will take some time to address though.
[/quote]
Sounds good to me. I like long answers that require me to think.

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1078657' date='Sep 28 2006, 11:20 PM']
Pun intended?
[/quote]
LOL! Didn't catch that.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1078665' date='Sep 29 2006, 12:26 AM']
Interesting, however, the idea that a parent's faith can be sufficient to baptize a child is a foreign concept to me. Not that I haven't heard it before, but it's something that's just completely foreign to the Baptist way of thinking. It doesn't necessarily follow that God will allow that faith to be transferred(trying to think of the right word here, and that's not it) to the child. Infant Baptism, in some cases, sounds almost like a Baptist dedication of a baby. Baptists, often when they have a child, will have a special thing after a service in front of the congregation with the pastor, where the pastor and family will pray over the child, and dedicate the child to God in hopes that when the child grows older, they will come to saving knowledge of Christ.

Now, as a further question before I potentially stick my foot in my mouth: Are cradle Catholics misguided in the notion that their baptism as a child is sufficient for their standing with God?
[/quote]

Hmmm...that's very interesting. If it helps establish a connection, we believe it's possible primarily based on the way God works in general. For instance, He wanted children to be circumcized in the Old Testament as babies in order to enter into a covenant.

In answer to your question, I'm not completely sure what you mean. We believe that Baptism is when grace first enters the soul. If a Catholic died after receiving Baptism, the Catholic would be saved. However, we believe that salvation can be lost through mortal sin (which is an issue best saved for another debate).

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1078676' date='Sep 28 2006, 11:32 PM']
Hmmm...that's very interesting. If it helps establish a connection, we believe it's possible primarily based on the way God works in general. For instance, He wanted children to be circumcized in the Old Testament as babies in order to enter into a covenant.

In answer to your question, I'm not completely sure what you mean. We believe that Baptism is when grace first enters the soul. If a Catholic died after receiving Baptism, the Catholic would be saved. However, we believe that salvation can be lost through mortal sin (which is an issue best saved for another debate).
[/quote]

Ok.

As to the connection between circumcision and Baptism, I really don't see much Biblical evidence for this notion(I've gone around with Presbyterians on this before). One would think if there was such a link, it would be mentioned in Scripture, since Baptism is such an important part of Christianity(although I reject the idea that it's necessary for salvation). Furthermore, Circumcision wasn't necessary for one's "salvation" in the Old Testament. It was an outer sign of the favor of God on the Jewish people. So in order to be consistent, one would have to say that Baptism is merely an outer sign of one's standing with God no?

As to the question I asked: Suppose a cradle Catholic is baptized as a child. He grows older, and never really comes to any assent to Christ as Saviour(either through fault of his parents in not bringing him up in the faith, or he merely never accepts that). What is his standing with God?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Hey Will (I finally read what your name was), I sent you a PM. Wasn't sure if you'd gotten it. God bless.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1078688' date='Sep 29 2006, 12:40 AM']
As to the connection between circumcision and Baptism, I really don't see much Biblical evidence for this notion(I've gone around with Presbyterians on this before). One would think if there was such a link, it would be mentioned in Scripture, since Baptism is such an important part of Christianity(although I reject the idea that it's necessary for salvation). Furthermore, Circumcision wasn't necessary for one's "salvation" in the Old Testament. It was an outer sign of the favor of God on the Jewish people. So in order to be consistent, one would have to say that Baptism is merely an outer sign of one's standing with God no?

As to the question I asked: Suppose a cradle Catholic is baptized as a child. He grows older, and never really comes to any assent to Christ as Saviour(either through fault of his parents in not bringing him up in the faith, or he merely never accepts that). What is his standing with God?
[/quote]
Well, I wasn't trying to connect circumcision and Baptism yet, that's for another discussion. I was only trying to point out that God routinely entrusts important decisions like the entering of covenants to parents of infants. That's the angle I'm going from with this particular connection. Ponder it and get back to me.

I understand the question know. Unfortunately, this is a common problem. When a Baptized person comes of a certain age (we call it the age of reason in Catholic philosophy) when he can make decisions for himself, he must ultimately choose for or against God. As Christ says, there is no middle ground; the person is either for Him or against Him. Now, that means that the child will either follow the faith he has come to know or he will reject it. While certainly an intellectual rejection would be a rejection, we add that mortal sins are also rejections...they are just lived-out rejections more than merely intellectual. There are, of course, cases like I was in, where I was not well catechized, and did evil, but didn't know better. People will not be judged according to what they do not know (it is they who have received more from whom more will be demanded), but according to what they know. Now, assuming that the child acted in accordance with his conscience as much as possible, and any evil he did was in ignorance (or, if he sinned knowingly, he repented fully for love of God), we would say that he is still in the state of grace, and therefore saved.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Raphael

[Dave]

Hey Will, I hope you don't mind me jumping in here.

In regard to the baptism-circumcision connection, Paul says in Colossians 2:11-12 that baptism, for those of the New Covenant, has replaced circumcision, the sign of the Old Covenant. Now, under the Old Covenant, if an adult male converted to Judaism, he'd be circumcised as an adult. But if he were born Jewish, he'd be circumcised as an infant. So if circumcision, the mark of the Old Covenant, was performed on infants and adult converts, then wouldn't it be only fitting that baptism, the mark of the New Covenant, also be performed on them?

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Dave' post='1078706' date='Sep 28 2006, 11:54 PM']
Hey Will, I hope you don't mind me jumping in here.

In regard to the baptism-circumcision connection, Paul says in Colossians 2:11-12 that baptism, for those of the New Covenant, has replaced circumcision, the sign of the Old Covenant. Now, under the Old Covenant, if an adult male converted to Judaism, he'd be circumcised as an adult. But if he were born Jewish, he'd be circumcised as an infant. So if circumcision, the mark of the Old Covenant, was performed on infants and adult converts, then wouldn't it be only fitting that baptism, the mark of the New Covenant, also be performed on them?
[/quote]
Touche'. But is one actually "born Christian?" There's a whole world of difference between being born into a race of people, and being born into a faith no? Of course, I suppose one can be "born into a religion," but being born in a family of a certain religion doesn't autmatically make that person part of that religion until they choose to accept it no?

[Counter-Reformer]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1078781' date='Sep 29 2006, 01:29 AM']
Touche'. But is one actually "born Christian?" There's a whole world of difference between being born into a race of people, and being born into a faith no? Of course, I suppose one can be "born into a religion," but being born in a family of a certain religion doesn't autmatically make that person part of that religion until they choose to accept it no?
[/quote]

One could make the arguement, that did not John the Baptist leap for joy in his mother's womb? Maybe one could say that babies are totally innocent at that age and through prevenient grace actually do choose God? Afterall, Babies have a rational human soul.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Counter-Reformer

[sweetpea316]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1078781' date='Sep 29 2006, 12:29 AM']
Touche'. But is one actually "born Christian?" There's a whole world of difference between being born into a race of people, and being born into a faith no? Of course, I suppose one can be "born into a religion," but being born in a family of a certain religion doesn't autmatically make that person part of that religion until they choose to accept it no?
[/quote]
I've heard it put this way...what you said made me think of it...

When you were born, you were given a name. You had no choice in that decision, but you still entered the family. Likewise, being born does make you a member of a country. Whether it be the US, Canada, etc...just because you were born on that soil, it makes you an accepted citizen of that place. Likewise, baptism makes you a member of God's family and the family of faith in the Church. Yes, you are too young to realize it, just like with your name and citizenship...but it's your identity. And also, just as a US citizen can renounce their citizenship when they're 18, you can consciously choose to accept or reject the religion when you're old enough. Just like no parents would wait to name their kids till they're old enough to pick for themselves, parents baptize their children so that they receive a faith- without their consent, yes, but for their own good nonetheless.

No idea if that helps. But it's worth a shot, right?

[KnightofChrist]

NewReformation,

I dont know if its been brought up, but did not Paul go and baptize entire houses and families? He would baptize "All of them that were in the house", now in most all cases families and houses have babies, and children, and Paul bapitized alot of familys and alot of houses. So it is very logical that Paul did indeed bapitize children, and babies, and if Paul can do it, so can the Church.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1078781' date='Sep 29 2006, 01:29 AM']
Touche'. But is one actually "born Christian?" There's a whole world of difference between being born into a race of people, and being born into a faith no? Of course, I suppose one can be "born into a religion," but being born in a family of a certain religion doesn't autmatically make that person part of that religion until they choose to accept it no?
[/quote]
Not to pile on, but aren't all Christians children of Abraham?