Infant Baptism

[MarkTwain]

My problem has always been that I don't have assurance, though, so...

 

[MarkTwain]

Well it is that "un-stated" reference that is shown multiple times throughout the NT that leads me to believe that it does have a lot of significance. When someone chose to believe they and their entire households were baptized, slaves and all. It doesn't say everyone of the age of accountability was baptized.... it says "entire household". I do also believe that it is the sign of the new covenant and the first Christians obviously were adults because Christianity was born in their generation so logically the only reports of baptism would be with the adults. But why discount the fact that once they were baptized the entire household was as well? That IS significant.

There are so many parallels between the old sign of the covenant circumcision and the sign of the new covenant baptism that if you really study them you could conclude one has replaced the other.

Are you suggesting, then, that even if one is baptized unwillingly, it counts anyway?


Or were the slaves baptized willingly?

 

[PaladinValer]

I don't think it's wrong nor a sin to baptize infants. But is this contradictory to scripture? Can I baptize my infant (when I have kids)?

No. Infact, infant baptisms are inferred in Holy Scripture.

No, you yourself cannot Baptize your children. Unless they are in true danger of death and there is no ordained deacon, priest, or bishop around, you cannot Baptise.

Depends on whether you think they're "saved" or not when you do. If so, then you've stepped outside the bounds of "sola fide" as the basis of salvation.

Muz

"Believe and be Baptized and you will be saved" is the full quote.

Question please...

I understand the discrepancies above regarding infant baptism, but it makes me wonder about the issue of the second baptism... the baptism via the Holy Spirit (different from water baptism). Could it possibly be that, the sola fide is entwined with the (second) baptism of the Spirit?

It isn't a different Baptism. When you are Baptized, you are made habitable for the Holy Spirit and receive Him.

Is the water baptism out of obedience, like circumcision... because we are told to be baptized... and the spirit baptism out of faith?

There is only one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins...Nicene Creed. There is no difference between a "water" baptism and a "Spirit" baptism. There is only one Baptism.

 

[KEPLER]

I don't think it's wrong nor a sin to baptize infants. But is this contradictory to scripture? Can I baptize my infant (when I have kids)?

Not only can you, but you should. To fail to do so is to restrain your child from God's Grace. I can't think of many actions more wicked than that.

Depends on whether you think they're "saved" or not when you do. If so, then you've stepped outside the bounds of "sola fide" as the basis of salvation.

Muz

Incorrect.

Sola Fide means Faith alone.

There is a split among believers concerning the effect of water baptism. Some, like myself, think it is symbolic and does not accomplish anything in the spiritual realm.

Others think that water baptism is necessary for salvation (unless there was no opportunity). Now as a logical offshoot of this view, some believe babies should be water baptized, thus ensuring the spiritual protection of the infant, so if the baby should die, they would still go to heaven.

This is a rather provincial definition...

I believe such a view is wrong. Now what is consistent with scripture is a baby or child dedication, where the parents make a public pledge to raise the child according to the Law of Christ, teaching him all that Christ commanded.

Please provide a single instance of a child being "dedicated" as support of your position. (And remember, Samuel was not dedicated to God, per se, but to the priesthood(! Sam 1:11), so he doesn't count!)

Question please...

I understand the discrepancies above regarding infant baptism, but it makes me wonder about the issue of the second baptism... the baptism via the Holy Spirit (different from water baptism). Could it possibly be that, the sola fide is entwined with the (second) baptism of the Spirit?
Is the water baptism out of obedience, like circumcision... because we are told to be baptized... and the spirit baptism out of faith?
I apologize for wording this in such a scatterbrained manner. God bless.

Water baptism and Spirit baptism are (normally) one and the same event.

Kepler

 

[Macarius]

I have always understood John the Baptist's referance to Christ baptizing by the Holy Spirit and fire as a referance to the fullness of grace that Christ's baptism would have over John's. Acts, with the story of those baptized in John receiving the laying on of hands (the completion of Christian baptism) confirmed that for me... as did Christ saying you must be born again (baptized) of water and the spirit.

I suppose in a limited sense the EO differentiates between baptism and chrismation, and since Chrismation is the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, there is some distinction between the two, but I wouldn't stretch that too far, since chrismation is entirely linked to baptism and always follows immediately after it.

 

[KEPLER]

I have always understood John the Baptist's referance to Christ baptizing by the Holy Spirit and fire as a referance to the fullness of grace that Christ's baptism would have over John's. Acts, with the story of those baptized in John receiving the laying on of hands (the completion of Christian baptism) confirmed that for me... as did Christ saying you must be born again (baptized) of water and the spirit.

I suppose in a limited sense the EO differentiates between baptism and chrismation, and since Chrismation is the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, there is some distinction between the two, but I wouldn't stretch that too far, since chrismation is entirely linked to baptism and always follows immediately after it.

I think Peter's actions in Acts 10-11 go a long way toward supporting that (even though as a Lutheran, I don't really have a category of "Chrismation".) Clearly, Peter thought it was strange that the gentiles had received the Holy Spirit without having been water baptized, so he quickly set about to "tie the package together", so to speak. Water and the Spirit are often linked together! (Gen 1:2, John 3:5; Titus 3:5-6).

Kepler

 

[Macarius]

Do Lutherans have an equivalent to confirmation, or is that one of the RCC sacraments which was objected to?

Chrismation is the EO equivalent to Confirmation, except that it wasn't separated from baptism in the East...

 

[KEPLER]

Do Lutherans have an equivalent to confirmation, or is that one of the RCC sacraments which was objected to?

Chrismation is the EO equivalent to Confirmation, except that it wasn't separated from baptism in the East...

We have confirmation; we don't call it a sacrament.

 

[Ave Maria]

In the Bible we read that entire households were baptized at once. It is likely that there were infants in these households. Is this, therefore, good evidence for infant baptism?

A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism

What does the Bible say about infant baptism?

Infant Baptism is clearly not Biblical as is shown in the links above.

 

[KEPLER]

In the Bible we read that entire households were baptized at once. It is likely that there were infants in these households. Is this, therefore, good evidence for infant baptism?

A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism

What does the Bible say about infant baptism?

Infant Baptism is clearly not Biblical as is shown in the links above.

A quick question for you PL02: did or did not YHWH include infants in the covenental promises given to the people of Israel in the Old Testament? (e.g., in Gen 17)

Yes or No?

 

[Iosias]

Infant Baptism is clearly not Biblical as is shown in the links above.

The argument for infant baptism is founded upon the covenant of God. See this.

 

[Ave Maria]

The argument for infant baptism is founded upon the covenant of God. See this.

Thank you for the article AV1611.

 

[Athanasias]

I don't think it's wrong nor a sin to baptize infants. But is this contradictory to scripture? Can I baptize my infant (when I have kids)?

We do not think we should deny that infant that free gift of Christ grace. That is why we baptize infants. That and to wash away their original sin. Christ gives the Church the Sacrament of baptism so we can give the free gift of grace to others. Christ Jesus instituted his Trinitarian baptism to apply this grace to people. He even commands us to do it(Matt 28:19-20). So of coarse we will obey him and give his baptism to our children. God can grant grace outside of the normal means(sacraments). But he instituted this sacrament for the purpose of giving his free gift to others so we need to obey him because that is the "normative means" he sets up for the church.

Jesus baptism actually does remit guilt and washes away our sins and does what John's couldn't do(Namely infuses our soul with his grace and actually saves us, justifies us,, and sanctifies us, hence Trinifying us).

A few things about that verse in Acts 2 that protestants seem to think denies infant baptism. To begin with Peter tells the People to repent before they are baptized. Why? Because Peter was talking to Adults in this context. The Catholic church has always taught that adults or Children of the age of reason do need to repent before baptism. However passage doesn't disqualify infant baptism at all. There is no place in the bible that says "Do not baptize infants". As a matter of fact the same passage protestants quote to me(Acts 2:38) trying to prove infant baptism is wrong actually implicitly teaches the possibility of infant baptism! Notice what Peters says right after he tells the adults. He says this (Baptism) is for you and your children. Nowhere does Peter specify age! And if you study the culture of the time it becomes even clearer. The Hebrew mindset of time would have automatically understood this to mean infants as well as others. Especially since their culture allowed for circumcision, a covenant ritual performed on infants that entered them into the Jewish faith and communion with God. St Paul shows us that the Sacrament of Baptism replaces circumcision(Col 2:11-13). Hence the new covenant of baptism fulfills the old covenant of circumcision. Baptism now enters you into the True religion and Family of God and give us communion with God(The Trinity). If the Old covenant could enter Infants into Gods family so then too the new covenant can on a even greater level. Baptism is a typological fulfillment of circumcision. No covenant fulfillment's is ever inferior to its old testament type. The fulfillment is always superior. If infants could not be baptized then baptism is a inferior covenant to circumcision.

In Luke 18:15-17 speaking of Infants, Jesus tells us that we are not hinder even the infants to come to him to receive the kingdom of God. Speaking of infants he even says "whoever does not receive the "Kingdom of God" like a Child(Infant in context) shall not enter it. Besides circumcision, this is a big implicit hint to infant baptism in scripture. Bible scholars compare the Phrase "Kingdom of God" to others important passages were Jesus speaks about how to enter into the "kingdom of God". How does one enter into the "kingdom of God"? In JN 3:3-5 Jesus shows us we enter in to the "kingdom of God" by the sacrament of Baptism. So how then do infants and all of us enter initially into the kingdom of God? By baptism. we have to put the pieces of the puzzle together in scripture in its context as a whole as well as its immediate and historical context. Protestant Man made tradition teaches against infant baptism but from the very beginning of Christianity it wasn't so.

The baptism of infants is implicit in scripture but explicit in the Oral traditions/teachings of the apostles that were handed down from the very beginning.

Here are a few quotes from the early Christians(the same guys who you owe your new testament canon to)

Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).



Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Gregory of Nazianz

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

John Chrysostom

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

 

[Ormly]

I don't think it's wrong nor a sin to baptize infants. But is this contradictory to scripture? Can I baptize my infant (when I have kids)?

Infant baptism is a misnomer for 'infant dedication' initiated by Hannah, in the OT, who upon his first birthday took the baby Samuel to Eli and presented him to the Lord for His service. That was her promise to God for blessing her in her bareness. That custom was passed down through the ages and is still in practice.

 

[Catholic Christian]

I don't think it's wrong nor a sin to baptize infants. But is this contradictory to scripture? Can I baptize my infant (when I have kids)?

Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?


Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.


Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.


But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.


The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).


None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

 

[Ormly]

Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

No exception is needed.

Faith is Christ is not needed for the redemption of the innocent.

 

[Athanasias]

Faith is needed. But in infant baptism faith is present. The faith of the Church that is.

 

[k2svpete]

Salvation is a personal choice and decision, not something that can be done esoterically by a third party.organisation.

All are born in sin, we need to do something to be made righteous, this is choosing Christ over the flesh.

Infants do not have the ability to make this decision for themselves so cannot be held responsible. So what happens in the event of infant death? The body is buried/cremated and that's it. No resurrection to judgement as the infant is not responsible.

 

[E.C.]

I don't think it's wrong nor a sin to baptize infants. But is this contradictory to scripture? Can I baptize my infant (when I have kids)?

Have the kid'lins baptized if you wish. Should God wish for me to marry and have a family than I would have my kid'lins baptized and raise them in the Orthodox Church.

There is no reason as to why not. Saying that one needs to decide to follow Christ is to put an intellectual requirement on being a Christian.

 

[Ormly]

Salvation is a personal choice and decision, not something that can be done esoterically by a third party.organisation.

All are born in sin, we need to do something to be made righteous, this is choosing Christ over the flesh.

Infants do not have the ability to make this decision for themselves so cannot be held responsible. So what happens in the event of infant death? The body is buried/cremated and that's it. No resurrection to judgement as the infant is not responsible.

You mean, no eternal life for the infant?