Pope Francis defends infant baptism

[KevinT]

Where does Scripture teach the Age of Accountability? The belief in the Age of Accountability is an innovation and is another attempt to EXPLAIN AWAY infant baptism.

Hmmm..... I agree that this is not spelled out in the Bible. But the concept was around before the time of Christ. I do not know @Ain't Zwinglian 's denomination, but I was assuming Catholic. In this writeup from Wikipedia, there is mention in Canon law from the Catholic church that "before the age of seven, a child "is considered not responsible for oneself", but after that "is presumed to have the use of reason".

Do you disagree that a 3 yr old should not be treated the same as an adult?

Best wishes
KT

 

[KevinT]

No. You can only be validly baptized ONCE. Holy Communion and Confirmation reaffirms the Baptismal promises.

In my church, if someone was baptized long ago, and had wandered far from God, if they then asked to be rebaptized, my church would accommodate this. But it is not required.

KT

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Not wanting to propagate old wives' tales, I decided to look into the history of this. Wikipedia has a good write up on Believer's Baptism


I take the above to indicate that there was a diversity of views in the early church. Would you agree with that?

Best wishes,

KT

When in doubt, don't quote Scripture to make your case.

Acts 2:38-39 lists two categories of individuals who are to be baptized. Adults who have to repent before they are baptized and their children (regardless of age) who don't have to repent to be baptized.

The only other passage of Scripture that deals with who should be baptized is Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

• Baptism is a Divine commission "baptize the nations"— and there never was a nation without infants.
• Jesus neither instituted adult nor infant baptism just simply baptism--baptism for all. All Human souls are intended for baptism.
• Christians are authorized to baptize all who compose a nation, men, women and children & infants.
• There is no age or intellectual developmental requirement given for baptism. No mental tooling necessary. All severely mentally ill, all blind, deaf, mute can be baptized. All disabled people either mentally or physically can be be baptized.
• The command, therefore, to baptize all nations, is a command to baptize the youngest child as well as the oldest man.

Baptists and American evangelicals in trying to refute this, will go to texts in the Scripture that contextually have nothing to do with baptism to EXPLAIN AWAY INFANT BAPTISM.

Using Matthew 28 and Acts 2, I am only appealing to Scripture which specifically and contextually deal with who is to be baptized.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Would you agree with that?

In my church, if someone was baptized long ago, and had wandered far from God, if they then asked to be rebaptized, my church would accommodate this.

Chapter and verse for the authority to rebaptize

 

[bbbbbbb]

Are you saying God can work miracles in a baby's heart? Why or why not?

Yes, it can most definitely include slaves.

God can do anything. In fact, God could save all of mankind - if He decided to do so. He could also establish His own religious bureaucracy with a headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah to determine who, if anyone, He wants to save. The possibilities of what God can do are, indeed, infinite.

If you believe that God saves people apart from faith in Jesus Christ, then that is, indeed, a possibility. I would not be overly surprised to find pink elephants basking in the shade of the dark side of the moon, either.

 

[bbbbbbb]

NON Catholic here.....Keeping the baptism like unto circumcision, this was how Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob passed on the promise to their children, as well as faithful to keep Gods covenant of promise?

Ge 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Ge 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Ge 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

An interesting concept for sure, looking at the promises To Abraham.....
Covenant keeping...
Prerequisite to partake of the Passover...
Ex 12:44 But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
Ex 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Do you believe that baptism and circumcision are synonymous?

 

[ralliann]

Do you believe that baptism and circumcision are synonymous?

I was simply commenting on what the Catholic/ Orthodox teach. I find it an interesting Idea, since circumcision is from before the law. To answer your question, No they are not synonymous. Both are signs.
Ge 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token (aka sign) of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

I am not absolutely sure but aren't sacraments considered Signs, or tokens of one's faith?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I was simply commenting on what the Catholic/ Orthodox teach. I find it an interesting Idea, since circumcision is from before the law. To answer your question, No they are not synonymous. Both are signs.
Ge 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token (aka sign) of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

I am not absolutely sure but aren't sacraments considered Signs, or tokens of one's faith?

Sacraments, to many Christians, are, indeed, signs or tokens of one's faith, but to others sacraments are much more than that. In a nutshell, a common belief is that a sacrament is the means by which God confers grace upon an individual. Thus, when an infant is baptized God confers grace upon him and, according to some denominations, absolves the infant of the inherited sin from Adam. Likewise, in communion, for many Christians, God's grace is uniquely received when one eats the body of Jesus Christ and drinks His blood.

 

[RileyG]

God can do anything. In fact, God could save all of mankind - if He decided to do so. He could also establish His own religious bureaucracy with a headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah to determine who, if anyone, He wants to save. The possibilities of what God can do are, indeed, infinite.

If you believe that God saves people apart from faith in Jesus Christ, then that is, indeed, a possibility. I would not be overly surprised to find pink elephants basking in the shade of the dark side of the moon, either.

A baby can’t have faith? Is that what you are trying to imply?

 

[RileyG]

In my church, if someone was baptized long ago, and had wandered far from God, if they then asked to be rebaptized, my church would accommodate this. But it is not required.

KT

Interesting.

Is Baptism just symbolic then?

 

[bbbbbbb]

A baby can’t have faith? Is that what you are trying to imply?

Hardly at all. If God wills anything, it will happen. If God wills that all babies have faith, then all babies have faith. If God wills that only some babies have faith and others do not, that will happen. If God wills that only babies who have been properly bathed in a church have faith, then that is simple reality.

 

[ralliann]

Hardly at all. If God wills anything, it will happen. If God wills that all babies have faith, then all babies have faith. If God wills that only some babies have faith and others do not, that will happen. If God wills that only babies who have been properly bathed in a church have faith, then that is simple reality.

Baptism of infants is different than adult baptism. Like circumcision. A sign of the faith of the fathers.

Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

 

[concretecamper]

The conundrum faced with infant baptism is that many such infants grow into thoroughly unbelieving adults.

This is not a conundrum, but a personal choice by each person.

Thus, the grace conferred through the rite of baptism is only temporary, at best

The Grace is not temporary. It is adequate but some choose a different path.

Thus, another means of acquiring the grace of salvation is needed

This displays an ignorance of Grace.

Thus, there is first communion

Required for salvation by those who have reached the age of reason.

and confirmation

Fortifies the recipient

Then there is an innumerable host of religious good works which are deemed essential if one is to hope for salvation.

False

Salvation, in this system, is never certain and is always tied to the individual's efforts.

Actually, reading many posts on this entire forum, the Roman Catholic Church provides the most clear way to Salvation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is not a conundrum, but a personal choice by each person.

The Grace is not temporary. It is adequate but some choose a different path.

This displays an ignorance of Grace.

Required for salvation by those who have reached the age of reason.

Fortifies the recipient

False

Actually, reading many posts on this entire forum, the Roman Catholic Church provides the most clear way to Salvation.

Do you have an absolute assurance of your personal salvation?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Baptism of infants is different than adult baptism. Like circumcision. A sign of the faith of the fathers.

Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

That may be true, but that does not make circumcision sacramental.

 

[RileyG]

Hardly at all. If God wills anything, it will happen. If God wills that all babies have faith, then all babies have faith. If God wills that only some babies have faith and others do not, that will happen. If God wills that only babies who have been properly bathed in a church have faith, then that is simple reality.

That’s just your opinion.

Why did God have 8 old babies circumcised in the Old Covenant and not adults only? It was a sign of faith.

Sounds like to me you’re just using your own proof text.

 

[RileyG]

That may be true, but that does not make circumcision sacramental.

Oh really? Col. 2:11-12 makes it clear.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That’s just your opinion.

Why did God have 8 old babies circumcised in the Old Covenant and not adults only? It was a sign of faith.

Sounds like to me you’re just using your own proof text.

Absolutely. That is precisely and only my opinion. That is not a proof text by any stretch of my wildest imagination and am quite astounded that you seem to think of my opinion in that light.

My point remains the same, however. Circumcision is, and never was, a sacrament by any definition of the word "sacrament". Curiously, there is no word in either Hebrew or Greek which can be, or has been, translated as "sacrament". "Sacrament" is a purely theological construct subject to a variety of definitions. What is a sacrament to Catholics is not a sacrament to Lutherans and vice versa, not to mention the larger world of Christian denominations.

 

[RileyG]

Absolutely. That is precisely and only my opinion. That is not a proof text by any stretch of my wildest imagination and am quite astounded that you seem to think of my opinion in that light.

My point remains the same, however. Circumcision is, and never was, a sacrament by any definition of the word "sacrament". Curiously, there is no word in either Hebrew or Greek which can be, or has been, translated as "sacrament". "Sacrament" is a purely theological construct subject to a variety of definitions. What is a sacrament to Catholics is not a sacrament to Lutherans and vice versa, not to mention the larger world of Christian denominations.

You’re correct, circumcision was never a sacrament. It was a sign of the covenant.

Your post is entirely accurate, to be fair.

God bless you

 

[bbbbbbb]

Oh really? Col. 2:11-12 makes it clear.

Does it really?

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

As you can see, the word "sacrament" does not appear at all in either verse.

These verses are subject to a host of interpretations. At one end of the spectrum, one can believe circumcision and baptism are synonymous. If so, then only males can be baptized because one cannot circumcise females. Also, the rite must be performed at the temple in Jerusalem and no place else (unless one subscribes to later Jewish theology) and by a Levitical priest. One must also reject the concluding statement of the Council of Jerusalem which dismissed circumcision for Gentile Christians, or read into that passage that the Apostles actually stated that circumcision was really replaced by baptism and, therefore, was to be rejected by all Christians. There is no evidence in Acts 15 that this thought even crossed their minds.

At the other end of spectrum, one can view these verses as metaphorically comparing circumcision with baptism. One can see certain commonalities between them while recognizing distinct differences. At this point it becomes quite fuzzy with various views being propounded. Some folks, such as yourself, believe that because babies were circumcised (never mind the gender problem) all babies must be baptized. While you may wish to believe this, it is not supported by the text itself, taken at its face value.