Pope Francis defends infant baptism

[bbbbbbb]

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

Thank you! I do strive for accuracy, even though I am constrained by my personal opinions.

 

[RileyG]

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.

Fair enough.

Baptism is for everyone. Even females.

No argument from me.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Fair enough.

Baptism is for everyone. Even females.

No argument from me.

Thanks. I can respect that position.

 

[RileyG]

Thank you! I do strive for accuracy, even though I am constrained by my personal opinions.

Not to ramble on, of all the 7 Sacraments of the RCC, most Protestants only recognize two, Baptism and Communion.

Most Protestants call the (some) other sacraments (marriage, ordination, confirmation) rites.

Except some high church Anglicans recognize all 7 Sacraments.

 

[RileyG]

Thanks. I can respect that position.

I assume your Church uses the term ordinance instead of sacrament since baptism and communion aren’t seen as means of grace?

If so, that makes sense you don’t favor the word sacrament.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not to ramble on, of all the 7 Sacraments of the RCC, most Protestants only recognize two, Baptism and Communion.

Most Protestants call the (some) other sacraments (marriage, ordination, confirmation) rites.

Except some high church Anglicans recognize all 7 Sacraments.

Quite true.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I assume your Church uses the term ordinance instead of sacrament since baptism and communion aren’t seen as means of grace?

If so, that makes sense you don’t favor the word sacrament.

Actually, my church, a conservative branch of the Presbyterians, uses "sacrament" rather than ordinance, but not in a way that most Catholics would understand, much less agree with. I think even John Calvin would be perplexed with the current usage. It is my observation that the current Presbyterian use of the word is really much closer in meaning to ordinance.

 

[RileyG]

Actually, my church, a conservative branch of the Presbyterians, uses "sacrament" rather than ordinance, but not in a way that most Catholics would understand, much less agree with. I think even John Calvin would be perplexed with the current usage. It is my observation that the current Presbyterian use of the word is really much closer in meaning to ordinance.

I didn't know you were Presbyterian. Your profile says Non-Denominational.

I guess that makes sense though.

Do you belong to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)?

 

[KevinT]

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

Be nice. I am trying to have a cordial conversation with you. I was assuming that the support of this was from the founding fathers. So that is why I looked at their beliefs, rather than going to Scripture. But I am happy to not have to do that. So let's focus on just Scriptures. More below...

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.

For reference, here is the text.

Acts 2: 38 Peter replied, “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. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

I had never actually noticed the significance clause about "and your children" in this light. Very good point. But I will point out that there is a difference between a child and an infant. Whether it is a significant difference or not is debatable. ... As I have thought about this further, this seems like the children described here, Peter is speaking of them as when the children were referenced in the OT as the next generation, a future yet to come. Deut 5:9 "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me," Thus just as God states how He will deal with the future generations of those who had Him, Peter is stating how the Spirit will be given to believers and to the next generation too. But I can also see how you might disagree with this interpretation.

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,

1. Baptism is a Divine commission "baptize the nations"— and there never was a nation without infants.
2. Jesus neither instituted adult nor infant baptism just simply baptism--baptism for all. All Human souls are intended for baptism.
3. Christians are authorized to baptize all who compose a nation, men, women and children & infants.
4. 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.
5. The command, therefore, to baptize all nations, is a command to baptize the youngest child as well as the oldest man.

I changed your bullet points to a number list, so I can reference your points.

1. I feel this is a logically weak point. If we look just at the phrase "baptize the nations," one could simply say that the command was to baptize regardless of the recipient's beliefs. There are some that say that Constantine marched his army through the river in 312 AD to convert the soldiers. I just researched this and can't actually find proof of this, but if true, then there were certainly soldiers that were baptized who had no conversion of heart. And if we are only concerned about the actual baptism act, then if we could administer some sort of sleeping gas on a Muslim city, invade and grab all the unconscious people, dunk them under water, and we have succeeded in converting them to Christianity! Obviously this would be an atrocity and I am only using it as an extreme example. My point is that baptism is a symbol of repentance and rebirth that requires an engaged and willing mind, where the believer comes up out of the water washed and reborn into a new life. So I believe the phrase "baptize the nations" to mean that the disciples were to help the people in many nations to understand the Gospel, and come to believe. And this requires the person being baptized to understand what is going on. Regarding your text, "there never was a nation without infants", if you use this logic to mean that "everything in a nation is to be baptized," then I could extend this to a ludicrous extension and assert that a nation includes its pets, and therefore animals should also be baptized. I am certain you would not agree to that.
   
   
2. It was John the Baptist who is the first described in the Bible to baptize. I did find an article here that points out it may have been a Jewish practice before John. It is unclear to me if Jesus himself baptized anyone. John 4:1-2 says "Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples." But earlier John wrote: John 3:22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. Was this Jesus baptizing his disciples? Or his disciples baptizing Christ's followers? Regardless, there is no mention of the ages of those baptized. One can interpret this to mean that ALL ages were baptized, but it is not a logically proven one way or the other. Acts 2:38 38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." To me, I don't see how an infant is supposed to repent. Luke 3:7 "John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?" It doesn't make sense to me to consider that he was calling the babes in arms "vipers" when they were not old enough to know right from wrong.
   
   
3. Addressed in point 1 above.
   
   
4. The issue of severely mentally disabled persons is unclear. I personally would be happy for them to be baptized if they want or ask for it. But I think we may have to disagree on this point. It sems @Ain't Zwinglian is considering baptism in a way similar to circumcision. In the OT, an infant was circumcised and brought into the fold of Israel long before they could think about loyalty one way or another. It was something that the parents chose for their children. It was a mark commanded by God, and as long as the child (and later adult) had they mark, they were on the inside. In contrast, in the NT as I read it, baptism was something that was chosen by believers. People went to John the Baptist and asked to be baptized, although the Pharisees and rulers did not. It seems crazy to me to think that Jesus's disciples had just had the ability to knock the Pharisees over the head with a brick, and dunk them under water while they were unconscious, that they would then have been saved.
   
   
5. This is a summation point, so see above .

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.

Matthew 28: 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 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.

In summary, I see the two texts that you feel supports infant baptism. I appreciate you taking the time to share them with me. Ultimately, though, I still feel that repentance and an ability to be taught are key aspects of the baptism process.

We may have to agree to disagree, but I hope we can discuss this or other issues again in the future.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[KevinT]

Chapter and verse for the authority to rebaptize

Are you saying that because the Bible does not explicitly state that someone can be baptized a second time, that it is therefore excluded? If so, then your own words may trap you, because the Bible does not explicitly state that an infant can be baptized.

KT

 

[KevinT]

Interesting.

Is Baptism just symbolic then?

Yes. That is my understanding. It is a symbol of the believer's desire to follow God and to obey His instructions. Somewhat like the symbol of when Naaman the leper was cleaned by washing in the dirty Jordan river after following the prophet's instructions.

But I think it may have another role. It is something that the believer him or herself can look back on as a turning point in their life.

Consider Mark 11

28 And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?
29 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.
30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.
31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?
32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.
33 And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.

I infer from this passage that the rulers had not submitted to the baptism of John. If they had, they would have believed they were doing something in accordance to God's will, since it would be understanding that John was a prophet.

So the people that had repented and believed in John's prophetic mission and were baptized were primed to believe in Jesus, because John had announced Jesus as the Lamb of God. And thus the baptism was a tool from God to change the hearts of people. I see it more in this light, as compared to a ritual act that God needs before checking a box beside someone's name in the Book of Life.

Best wishes,
KT

 

[KevinT]

Not to ramble on, of all the 7 Sacraments of the RCC, most Protestants only recognize two, Baptism and Communion.

Most Protestants call the (some) other sacraments (marriage, ordination, confirmation) rites.

Except some high church Anglicans recognize all 7 Sacraments.

For my education, can you tell me the names of the 7 sacraments?

Best wishes,
KT

 

[bbbbbbb]

I didn't know you were Presbyterian. Your profile says Non-Denominational.

I guess that makes sense though.

Do you belong to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)?

Actually, I consider myself to be non-denominational (whatever that may mean) and attend an Evangelical Presbyterian Church, but am not a member of it.

 

[concretecamper]

Do you have an absolute assurance of your personal salvation?

Only if I do not reject Him.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

because the Bible does not explicitly state that an infant can be baptized.

I am always wary of any individual here at CF who uses the word explicitly. An individual's assumptions about the text surfaces readily. From my observation, the usage of "explicitly" shows a demand for their own person belief with a bar so high no such alternative belief will be entertained. Actually, "explicitly" demands precision in Bible speak where none is given.

Examples:
Where does the Bible EXPLICITLY state an eight year old child cannot be a pastor?
Where does the Bible EXPLICITLY state the topic of Abortion?
Where does the Bible EXPLICITLY allow churches to own private property?
Where does the Bible EXPLICITLY state women can take Holy Communion?
Where does the Bible EXPLICITLY bar infants from baptism?

And the list goes on and on and on and on.

The usage of the word "explicit" is a massive roadblock to free inquiry of the Biblical text.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Are you saying that because the Bible does not explicitly state that someone can be baptized a second time, that it is therefore excluded?

See post #75

 

[Valletta]

Do you have an absolute assurance of your personal salvation?

No way.

Phil 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; RSVCE

 

[ralliann]

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.

I do not know what all sacrament means to these Churches but I do believe in shadows and patterns for understanding.

If so, then only males can be baptized because one cannot circumcise females.

According to the Carnal command, true...

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.

This I question. Where do you get this from?

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.

I also question this. I do not see replacement, but something new.
This concerns lies being told about Paul and his teaching......He did not tell Jewish believers to not circumcise their children......
Ac 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

There is no evidence in Acts 15 that this thought even crossed their minds.

James Told Paul to prove these allegations false.
A recount of the decision of acts 15 council.....


22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

Even concerning the letter sent to all the churches at that time.... (4 prohibitions)

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

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.

I think the focal point of these things concerned the promises made to Abraham.
Before the law of moses
Not abolished by the law
Come to it's fullness in Christ.....

 

[RileyG]

Actually, I consider myself to be non-denominational (whatever that may mean) and attend an Evangelical Presbyterian Church, but am not a member of it.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Blessings

 

[RileyG]

No way.

Phil 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; RSVCE

Exactly! Neither did St. Paul.