Infant baptism?


#1

I found a verse in the book.the faith of the early fathers,page 128,verse 310a ,very bfeifly,it says it may be better to delay baptism in the case of small children.am i reading this correctly?
Thanks Frank


#2

[quote=frankieg]I found a verse in the book.the faith of the early fathers,page 128,verse 310a ,very bfeifly,it says it may be better to delay baptism in the case of small children.am i reading this correctly?
Thanks Frank
[/quote]

I have no idea. It sounds like an opinion to me. I would add that baptism replaces circumcision, Col 2.11-12. Infants were circumcised in the Old Testament when they were eight days old.
Moses forgot to circumcise his son and God almost killed him, Ex.4.24-26. Ouch!


#3

[quote=Yaegel]I have no idea. It sounds like an opinion to me. I would add that baptism replaces circumcision, Col 2.11-12. Infants were circumcised in the Old Testament when they were eight days old.
Moses forgot to circumcise his son and God almost killed him, Ex.4.24-26. Ouch!
[/quote]

Hi Yaegel,They werent making lampshades back then were they? :smiley: God Bless


#4

[quote=frankieg]I found a verse in the book.the faith of the early fathers,page 128,verse 310a ,very bfeifly,it says it may be better to delay baptism in the case of small children.am i reading this correctly?
Thanks Frank
[/quote]

There was some debate in about the third century AD as to whether infant baptism should take place on the eighth day, as a direct parallel to circumcision. This new idea was rejected by the Church. I have some quotes on my other computer of the Church fathers discussing this. That may be what the quote you read is referring to.


#5

[quote=frankieg]I found a verse in the book.the faith of the early fathers,page 128,verse 310a ,very bfeifly,it says it may be better to delay baptism in the case of small children.am i reading this correctly?
Thanks Frank
[/quote]

Tertullian, in the work you cite, is offering his opinion.

Others felt that baptism should be withheld until a person was near death, thereby affording them a “clean slate”.

The Church felt that the danger of delaying baptism outweighed any potential benefit.

Interestingly, Tertullian displays a streak of independence that eventually led him to turn his back on the Church and embrace Montanism.

Peace in Christ…Salmon


#6

[quote=Salmon]Tertullian, in the work you cite, is offering his opinion.

Others felt that baptism should be withheld until a person was near death, thereby affording them a “clean slate”.

The Church felt that the danger of delaying baptism outweighed any potential benefit.

Interestingly, Tertullian displays a streak of independence that eventually led him to turn his back on the Church and embrace Montanism.

Peace in Christ…Salmon
[/quote]

Correct Salmon Tertuallian was not a memeber of the clery as well he was a skilled apologist and lawyer but he was not a bishop nor is he considered a church father as he became a heretic he later became a Montanist and later a leader of his own independent sect. He stands out in some of his opinions alone verses the other fathers such as dissent on church teaching on infant baptism and the ever virginity of Mary. When the heretics would bring up Tertullian of proof for their postion Jerome would later exclaim that Tertullian was never a true son of the church.
We really can’t rely on Tertullian for pristine catholic teaching in all things because of his hereteical tendencies remember the early christians were not all infalliable they are just important witnesses as to the predominant thinking of the early christians ironically the early christins predominantly thought infant baptism was the norm and that Mary was ever virgin. Tertullian was the lone dissenter. His works on the Trinity were groundbreading though and his witness on this was invaluable as a building block for the Nicean Creed and Council. There is good and bad in Tertullian no novice should approach his work as it extremely heady stuff.


#7

check out Karl Keating e-letter…by the way, does he ever post on the forums anymore?


#8

Sure, I think that Baptism is performed in the same sense that infant circumcision was performed.

But, I think there’s more.

Why did Jesus tell John that He had to be baptized?

John was preaching a baptism of water and repentence. The water referred to the sign of God’s condemnation and punishment at the time of Noah. Jesus was, in my humble and respectful view, saying “I must have the sign of God’s condemnation and wrath put on me.” Water is the reminder for us that we deserve God’s condemnation and wrath for our sins.

John’s baptism was an alternate to the ritual baths that pilgrims took enroute to the Temple. And, John emphasized that the recipient should repent of his sins.

But, Jesus was sinless, and that’s why scripture says He got up immediately out of the water. Early Jewish Christians may well have understood Jesus’ action and we can very well understand it, too.

What did Jesus teach about baptism? He said that people would be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

So…the ‘repentence’ part makes us stumble about why infants can be baptized.

If baptism is delayed, then youngsters learn about their faith and learn about repentence and confession of sins. If baptism is administered early, youngsters still learn about their faith and learn about repentence and confession of sins, just as young Jewish boys learned about their faith after the circumcision.

But, not to disparage girls, Scripture talks about the circumcision of the heart, which is spiritual and refers to confession of sins and repentence for everyone.

Water is water, and immersion vividly recalls the flood of Noah’s time. But, water by pouring or sprinkling recalls the sign of God’s condemnation and His oath / covenant never to punish mankind for their sins that way again. Stay in your Bible.

Why did John say that he was unworthy to baptize Jesus?
Because he recognized that Jesus was sinless and he didn’t have the right to put God’s sign of condemnation on Jesus.

Why did Jesus say that John was the greatest prophet?
Because John prophesied that Jesus was the ‘Lamb’ that takes away the sins of the world. He connected everything in Jewish faith that preceded with Jesus’ ministry and death.


#9

Why not?

In Mark 10:14 our Lord Jesus said:

**“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” **

What do you think is the best way for little children to be brought closer to Jesus?

The answer: Baptism!

In the case of Tertullian saying that delaying baptism is preferable, it is clear that Tertullian is not against infant baptism per se, but rather he merely says it is “preferable”. Besides, it is just an opinion of his.

Gerry :slight_smile:


#10

If infants can’t be born again (baptized), what’s too keep society from taking that a step further and deciding some infants have no right to be born at all?. Oh wait a minute. That decision’s been made. It’s called abortion. It’s uncanny how error can evolve into the false doctrine that leads to death. And they say evolution is only a theory.


#11

[quote=BayCityRickL]Sure, I think that Baptism is performed in the same sense that infant circumcision was performed.

But, I think there’s more.

Why did Jesus tell John that He had to be baptized?

John was preaching a baptism of water and repentence. The water referred to the sign of God’s condemnation and punishment at the time of Noah. Jesus was, in my humble and respectful view, saying “I must have the sign of God’s condemnation and wrath put on me.” Water is the reminder for us that we deserve God’s condemnation and wrath for our sins.

John’s baptism was an alternate to the ritual baths that pilgrims took enroute to the Temple. And, John emphasized that the recipient should repent of his sins.

But, Jesus was sinless, and that’s why scripture says He got up immediately out of the water. Early Jewish Christians may well have understood Jesus’ action and we can very well understand it, too.

What did Jesus teach about baptism? He said that people would be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

So…the ‘repentence’ part makes us stumble about why infants can be baptized.

If baptism is delayed, then youngsters learn about their faith and learn about repentence and confession of sins. If baptism is administered early, youngsters still learn about their faith and learn about repentence and confession of sins, just as young Jewish boys learned about their faith after the circumcision.

But, not to disparage girls, Scripture talks about the circumcision of the heart, which is spiritual and refers to confession of sins and repentence for everyone.

Water is water, and immersion vividly recalls the flood of Noah’s time. But, water by pouring or sprinkling recalls the sign of God’s condemnation and His oath / covenant never to punish mankind for their sins that way again. Stay in your Bible.

Why did John say that he was unworthy to baptize Jesus?
Because he recognized that Jesus was sinless and he didn’t have the right to put God’s sign of condemnation on Jesus.

Why did Jesus say that John was the greatest prophet?
Because John prophesied that Jesus was the ‘Lamb’ that takes away the sins of the world. He connected everything in Jewish faith that preceded with Jesus’ ministry and death.
[/quote]

Repentence is an important issue with Baptism, but infants don’t have sins to repent of.

It’s important for me to know that I was baptised with water and the Spirit as early in life as possible.


#12

One more thing.

Since mentally retarded people, who like infants and very young children do not have the intellectual capacity to know and understand Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, do we then refuse baptism to them because they do not qualify as being “endowed” with understanding?

Are they disqualifed because they, like infants cannot properly reason?

Isn’t Christ their Saviour as well, as much as ours ?

Gerry :slight_smile:


#13

[quote=RobedWithLight]Why not?

In Mark 10:14 our Lord Jesus said:

**“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” **

What do you think is the best way for little children to be brought closer to Jesus?

The answer: Baptism!

In the case of Tertullian saying that delaying baptism is preferable, it is clear that Tertullian is not against infant baptism per se, but rather he merely says it is “preferable”. Besides, it is just an opinion of his.

Gerry :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I would respectfully disagree with you on this Gerry. This passage is severely abused by proof texting. There are no indications within the context of Mark 10 for any kind of baptism, especially infant baptism. I would go to another passage before using this one to promote infant baptism.

In love
Josiah


#14

[quote=Yaegel]If infants can’t be born again (baptized), what’s too keep society from taking that a step further and deciding some infants have no right to be born at all?. Oh wait a minute. That decision’s been made. It’s called abortion. It’s uncanny how error can evolve into the false doctrine that leads to death. And they say evolution is only a theory.
[/quote]

:thumbsup:


#15

Original sin is present in all people as soon as they are born. Maybe earlier, I don’t know. As a parent, I prefer infant baptiam. Sure I trust Gods mercy if my infant dies, but why would I ignore baptism when it’s the way Jesus has given us to remove this sin? I prefer the first lifeboat that comes by.:yup:


#16

[quote=Catholic Tom]check out Karl Keating e-letter…by the way, does he ever post on the forums anymore?
[/quote]

I think he comments on all of his e-letter threads.


#17

[quote=josiah]I would respectfully disagree with you on this Gerry. This passage is severely abused by proof texting. There are no indications within the context of Mark 10 for any kind of baptism, especially infant baptism. I would go to another passage before using this one to promote infant baptism.

In love
Josiah
[/quote]

I would respectfully disagree with you on this Josiah , as far as the abuse of MK. 10.14 goes. The catechism sights this passage as it regards infant baptism in paragraphs 1244 & 1261. I do agree that it can’t be isolated to prove infant baptism but as catholics we must interpret each verse of scripture in light of all scripture. Christ said that scripture cannot be broken ,Jn 10.35.
When you compare Mk 10.14 "But when Jesus saw it He was indignant and said to them ‘Let the children come to me and do not hinder them; for to such belong the KINGDOM OF GOD’ " to Jn 3.5 " Jesus answered him, ‘Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit (baptized), he cannot enter the KINGDOM OF GOD’ ", it’s quite obvious that Mk 10.14 is referring to infant baptism.

                                             God bless,
                                                       Mark

#18

[quote=RobedWithLight]Why not?

In Mark 10:14 our Lord Jesus said:

**“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” **

What do you think is the best way for little children to be brought closer to Jesus?

The answer: Baptism!

In the case of Tertullian saying that delaying baptism is preferable, it is clear that Tertullian is not against infant baptism per se, but rather he merely says it is “preferable”. Besides, it is just an opinion of his.

Gerry :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Hi-
This scripture get’s misquoted all the time, your reference to Mark
isn’t talking about baptism. Read Mark 10:13-14, Math 19:13-14 and Luke 18:15-16. Jesus was laying hands on them and blessing them, not baptizing them. I don’t think that infant and baptism are mentioned in the same sentence anywhere in scripture. I could be wrong though.

Each of us was born pure and innocent. That why Jesus said we must become like little children if we hope to enter his kingdom (Mathew 18:3). As we grew up we learned to do evil from those around us. Satan tempted us to do evil, even as he did Adam and Eve. We exercised our will power just as they did. When we did that which God has forbidden or when we failed to do that which he had told us to do we sinned. For that we are accountable and responsible (II Corinthians 5:10). It wasn’t until around 500 AD that
the catholic church came up with original sin. I don’t believe thats in the Bible either, but I could be wrong there as well. I hope this helps you out.
Davehttp://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon11.gif


#19

[quote=Yaegel]I have no idea. It sounds like an opinion to me. I would add that baptism replaces circumcision, Col 2.11-12. Infants were circumcised in the Old Testament when they were eight days old.
Moses forgot to circumcise his son and God almost killed him, Ex.4.24-26. Ouch!
[/quote]

Romans 2:25-29
"25 The Jewish ceremony of circumcision is worth something only if you obey God’s law. But if you don’t obey God’s law, you are no better off than an uncircumcised Gentile. 26 And if the Gentiles obey God’s law, won’t God give them all the rights and honors of being his own people? 27 In fact, uncircumcised Gentiles who keep God’s law will be much better off than you Jews who are circumcised and know so much about God’s law but don’t obey it.
28 For you are not a true Jew just because you were born of Jewish parents or because you have gone through the Jewish ceremony of circumcision. 29 No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumcision is not a cutting of the body but a change of heart produced by God’s Spirit. Whoever has that kind of change seeks praise from God, not from people".
Galatians 5:6 “For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, it makes no difference to God whether we are circumcised or not circumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love”. Contrary to tradition belief must preceed baptism. here is one example from the Word of God Acts 16:29-33 29 Trembling with fear, the jailer called for lights and ran to the dungeon and fell down before Paul and Silas. 30 He brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"31 They replied, “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with your entire household.” 32 Then they shared the word of the Lord with him and all who lived in his household. 33 That same hour the jailer washed their wounds, and he and everyone in his household were immediately baptized. Gentiles are not bound to Levitical Law and therefore we can not put baptism on a parity with circumcision.


#20

Each of us was born pure and innocent.

Each of us is born with the disease of original sin and we are not so pure, thanks to Adam and Eve. This is why Jesus had to come. Baptism doesn’t wash Original sin away. Love in Christ.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.