Baptism?

[Quiddity]

For those interested, here is a link to the position held by the RCC concerning the baptized who do not call themselves catholic.

IV. Communion In Life And Spiritual Activity Among The Baptized

A. The Sacrament Of Baptism

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUECU.HTM#4

The Least
~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

I'm sure that's true... but I just wanted to make the distinction that not ONLY adults were baptized during "Jesus time"... there are accounts of whole families being baptized in the Scriptures.

Hi, Scott.

Are there any scriptural references you can think of that state specifically that small children and babies were baptized? The phrase "whole families" is really pretty vague. Throughout the New Testament, scripture after scripture speaks of baptism following faith in Jesus Christ and repentance of one's sins. Unless I am mistaken, there are virtually no verses which imply that baptism should be done apart from faith and repentance -- two things which, of course, an infant is incapable of.

Kathryn

 

[Quiddity]

Hi, Scott.

Are there any scriptural references you can think of that state specifically that small children and babies were baptized? The phrase "whole families" is really pretty vague.

What whole families do you know of (especially in those days) with no babies or young kids?

Throughout the New Testament, scripture after scripture speaks of baptism following faith in Jesus Christ and repentance of one's sins.

With adults yes this is true.

Unless I am mistaken, there are virtually no verses which imply that baptism should be done apart from faith and repentance -- two things which, of course, an infant is incapable of.

Ditto on this one. As I said in an earlier post:

The early Christian communities knew that they were supposed to baptize infants, and they did so. It doesn’t matter that this was not explicitly commanded in Scripture, it was explicitly commanded by the apostles, and the Church has never been in any doubt that infants are to be baptized, Scripture or no Scripture.

The Least
~Victor

The Least
~Victor

 

[Mister Emu]

What whole families do you know of (especially in those days) with no babies or young kids?

Depends on how far you are willing to stretch "whole" families.

The early Christian communities knew that they were supposed to baptize infants, and they did so...it was explicitly commanded by the apostles,

May I ask the earliest recorded infant baptism, also the earliest recorded command to baptize infants, and on the last part corroborating evidence of the apostles "explicitly commanding" infant baptism.

Edit: Teleporting "e"s and non-existant words

 

[Katzpur]

What whole families do you know of (especially in those days) with no babies or young kids?

Quite a number, I would suspect.

With adults yes this is true.

Well, since small children cannot possibly meet the requirements described in the scriptures, it would appear to me that they neither have a need for baptism or should be baptized. Besides, why would God require faith and repentance of anyone unless He required it for everyone?

The early Christian communities knew that they were supposed to baptize infants, and they did so. It doesn’t matter that this was not explicitly commanded in Scripture, it was explicitly commanded by the apostles, and the Church has never been in any doubt that infants are to be baptized, Scripture or no Scripture.

Since it wasn't commanded in the scriptures, would you mind providing some examples of where the Apostles instructed the people to baptize their children? If there really are instances of this, I would sincerely be interested in knowing of them. I just don't think that's too much to ask.

Kathryn

 

[dan]

There are no instances of children being commanded to be baptized (outside of apocryphal tradition). My family is an entire family that has no children in it. In fact, no one's under twenty. That's a pretty weak inference upon which to base a belief.

 

[Scott1]

That's a pretty weak inference upon which to base a belief.

Sorry you feel that way dan... I actually think it was a beautiful part of our families spiritual journey.

As for your "weak inference" crack:

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.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

Something else to think about:

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III

.... it's not a huge suprise that we don't see eye to eye on this subject... the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of baptism conferred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints... it's one of the few "Christian" faith groups that get this distinction.

 

[Mister Emu]

.... it's not a huge suprise that we don't see eye to eye on this subject... the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of baptism conferred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints... it's one of the few "Christian" faith groups that get this distinction.

Sorry for the side-track,

Out of curiosity, why?

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry for the side-track,

Out of curiosity, why?

Maybe Scott will have a better answer than I do. I suspect it's because of the many doctrines we do not share with mainstream Christianity. Personally, I think they are right not to accept our baptisms. We don't accept theirs. We believe that baptism is a sacred ordinance and must be performed by an individual who has been given the proper authority to do so. So, if the LDS Church is not what it claims to be, our baptisms cannot be considered valid. On the other hand, it would seem to me that a Lutheran baptised into the Catholic faith should also be rebaptized for the same reason. If the Catholic Church holds the same authority that Jesus gave to Peter, then the Lutheran Church doesn't, and a baptism performed by a Lutheran minister would not be valid.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's amazing to me that many don't understand that "spiritual" is just as real. Baptism is not only symbolic, it is deeply spriritual, in fact it is when you recieve the GIFT of the Holy Spirit.

The other curious issue is that the actual command by Peter was to "Repent and be Baptised". Not just one, and not just the other, but BOTH. Niether infants nor little children need to or are capable of repentance. Until you are ready to do BOTH, neither matters very much.

The scriptures have never asked for kids and infants to be baptised. There is no such record of such. Some assume that "whole families" means infants and little kids, but there is nothing more than such an assumption.

 

[dan]

Sorry you feel that way dan... I actually think it was a beautiful part of our families spiritual journey.

As for your "weak inference" crack:

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.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

Something else to think about:

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III

.... it's not a huge suprise that we don't see eye to eye on this subject... the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of baptism conferred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints... it's one of the few "Christian" faith groups that get this distinction.

Yeah, didn't they just change that rule?

As far as households go, where does it say (beyond a forced inference, of course) that infants were the children? My parents have five kids, and up until two years ago we all lived with them, and not one of us was under eighteen. Baptism is required of those able to understand the difference between right and wrong. Eight years old is where we draw the line as a general rule.

In Colossians it does not compare circumcision to baptism, it says repentance is the new circumcision (circumcision of the heart, Romans 2:29), and then you get baptized to show this conversion. Yay.

The Old Covenant was one of heredity and birth. The New is not. Paul talks about the difference between circumcision of the heart and of the Jews, but he doesn't mention baptism there, he only states that righteousness makes circumcision unnecessary. Righteousness doesn't make baptism unnecessary.

The Gospel that Christ brought was so much different from the Old Covenant that such an inference is unjust.

 

[Quiddity]

Until you are ready to do BOTH, neither matters very much.

Where exactly in the scriptures does it say this?
The examples in scripture were obviously with adults so it would stand to reason that both would occur at the same time. But nothing in scripture says you must do them both at the same time. The condition is that both are done. Here we can agree. Although we do both at the same time with adults in the Catholic Church. This does not apply for infants. They first get baptized and then they have faith.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

It baffles me that many of you would conclude that absolutely NO households would have an infant or a small child. How unreasonable is that...

~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

Victor,

I would encourage you to pull out EVERY reference to conversion in the NT. Make yourself a chart.

Reference Who Baptism? Holy Spirit? Repentance? Other?

Now look at these critically. You will find that baptism is in every single one. The Holy SPirit is in most. Repentance is either directly attributed or INFERRED in every single one. Start with the first one in Acts 2. You will be surprised.

It baffles me that many of you would conclude that absolutely NO households would have an infant or a small child. How unreasonable is that...

There are only two references where the entire household was baptised. Just two (that I can think of). I am sure that there were many households with small children and many without. It is best not to base your dogma on Biblical extrapolation. There was much the new church was trying to get straight... you know there is a cryptic reference to being baptised for the dead? But there are no examples of infant baptism nor for dead people given in scriptures.

How can a babe "pledge" to God?

I Peter 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. NIV

 

[Scott1]

I get ya NetDoc... we have another Sacrament in the process of Christian "initiation/conversion"= Confirmation.

Most of the valid points you bring up in Scripture where it implies adult/non-infants we handle with the Sacrament of Confirmation.... it's not a re-baptism, but part of the process. So I would say that you are quite right in your views on repentance... we just handle it differently.

Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed."

 

[Quiddity]

How can a babe "pledge" to God?

I think one of the reasons why we struggle is that you and many others cant get beyond preaching a "believers baptism". As Scott has noted that this is something done later in life, so we don't disagree here. But if you were to show us something that specifically says you MUST do them at the same time for all, then it would be case closed and the early church would have never baptized infants. Have you ever read the historical data on infant baptism? Even Luther would disagree with you here:

Now if God did not accept the Baptism of infants, he would not have given any of them the Holy Spirit nor any part of him; in short, all this time down to the present day no man on earth could have been a Christian. Since God has confirmed infant baptism through the gift of the Holy Spirit. . . our adversaries must admit that infant Baptism is pleasing to God. For he can never be in conflict with himself, support lies and wickedness, or give his grace and spirit for such ends. (Tappert: Book of Concord, [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959] pp. 442-3).

But I guess you may not care what Luther and hudreds of others had to say about infant baptism.

The Least
~Victor

 

[chuck010342]

Why is it Christians still do Baptism if they do not believe the creation story of Adam and Eve is literal? If one doesn't believe the Adam and Eve story is literal, it would stem to reason there shouldn't really be "origional sin" because this concept is based off Adam and Eve.

Good point Ryan hypocrites have indeed crept into the church.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But I guess you may not care what Luther and hudreds of others had to say about infant baptism.

Lets see... side with Luther or side with God? Side with Luther or side with God? You know, I think I'm gonna stick with God on this one.

Yes Scott,

I would agree that your "confirmation" is an attempt to garner what scriptural baptism dictates happen. If it works for you, then great.

 

[Quiddity]

Lets see... side with Luther or side with God? Side with Luther or side with God? You know, I think I'm gonna stick with God on this one.

Nice one....I suppose using any history pertaining to Christendom on you would serve no purpose. Because it is obvious you are infallible in your interpretations. :sarcastic
Thanks for the heads up.

I would agree that your "confirmation" is an attempt to garner what scriptural baptism dictates happen. If it works for you, then great.

An attempt?

The Least
~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

Victor,

I never claimed infallibility... I am probably the most sinful man on this entire forum. As for "interpretations"...

II Peter 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. NIV

You don't need to "interpret" scripture to understand it... just obey it!