Posted on 10/01/2009 6:29:50 AM PDT by NYer
Circumcision and baptism are similar because they are both outward seals of their respective covenants. The Old Covenant was based on the nation of Israel. If you were born into that nation, you were therefore expected to be circumcized as a sign that you were bound by the covenant.
The New Covenant is not based on your ancestry, but based on belief. Baptizing an unbeliever would be pointless, for without belief the baptism symbolizes nothing. I don’t think infants or small children can really grasp what is required of them for belief.
Based on biblical example, baptism should follow as soon as possible after conversion. Minutes, or perhaps hours, would be a normal time line.
IIRC there were several Biblical references to whole families being baptized - with no exclusions over age. While this does not guarantee infants were included, there is nothing to indicate infants were excluded. It was the association with the believing parent that warranted family-member baptism, not just individual faith.
Baptism is a choice; babies can’t make that choice.
Once a child has reached the age they are mature enough to make that choice, then the child should ask to be baptized. However, that age is dependent on the child.
I’m not sure that argument has enough validity. Circumcision was an outward sign of being bound by a Covenant with God, not just to show that you were an Israelite. The baby being circumcised did not have the capacity to understand the Covenant. What if later on he rejected God?
Infant baptism is an outward sign of a seal of the New Covenant. Certainly that infant may grow up and reject God as well. In the Acts of the Apostles you find stories of entire households being baptised. Those households almost certainly contained infants, or toddlers. Nowhere in the bible does it say (paraphrase) “And we baptised entire households, except the infants, because they were incapable of making their own choice.”
How do you know the thief on the cross WASN’T baptized?
The phrase in the catechism is "ordinarily necessary". Instances of salvation without baptism are envisioned.
I guess that whole “households were baptized” thing in the bible was only for those of the “age of accountability”. Babies and small children must have been exempt.
There is no infant baptism, a person is baptized when they realise the message of Christ is valid and they surrender thier life to him. If sprinkling water on a baby was a magical entry into heaven by sheer works then Christ died for nothing ...
If you are going to be consistent and rely on scripture alone, where does it say in the Bible that babies cannot be baptized. Hint - it doesn’t.
As someone in my 70’s I remember we had our kids baptized before they were one year old..usually first few months. But today it has changed and they now seem to have “baby dedication” day where parents take their babies to church for a ceremony of dedication to bringing up the child in the faith of the church. When I asked my granddaughter about the baby getting baptized she said they now believe it is left up to the child once they are old enough to make a decision. She likes the idea of baby dedication day as it is a statement of their faith and the need for their kids to be raised as Christians etc. It is a day of celebration for all of us as they make their commitment for their children. Our first great-grandchild is now 10 months and her dedication day is next month.
"Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:14-15>
Such was the case with Martin Luther, born November 10, 1483, baptized the next day, November 11 (the festival day for St. Martin of Tours, hence Luther's Christian name).
My daughter was born on a Sunday afternoon. On the first Sunday morning of her life, then--i.e., one week later--she was baptized.
Whatever, what a silly argument, the Bible doesn’t mention sticking olives in ones ears as means to salvatin either does it? Go head, sprinkle your babies, I was a Catholic for 30 years, then I heard the true gospel which was that salvation was by faith and not works, it was a real moment of conversion and sheer utter shock that I did not know the truth, Salvation was revealed to me by grace, all of my family, and wifes family are catholics, ask them if they are going to heaven they say “Yes” ask them why “Because I am a good person” is always the answer, this is true with almost every single catholic I meet, you can deny that all you want ...
The idea of baptizing a child comes from the belief that the baptism is what saves you. However, it is wrong to trust in your baptism as much as you trust in Christ Himself? If one believes that baptism saves them, they have moved too much of their trust to a symbol and away from the Savior, Jesus Christ.
It matters not what I or any other person thinks because it is what the Scriptures teach that is important. I believe in baptism and teach it as did Peter and the Apostles. Every one who trusts in Jesus Christ should be baptized. No one who truly trusts in Jesus will refuse biblical baptism. The biblical manner of baptism for the NT church (and the modern church) is by immersion in water with the name of Jesus Christ spoken over the believer. In Acts 2:38 Peter meant by, “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” that one is to “be baptized as a believer in Jesus Christ.” [A Translator’s Handbook on The Acts of the Apostles, UBS, ‘72, p. 60] The “name” stands for the person in which one has faith.
All of this being true, it is very important to realize that baptism is not something someone does. The verbs for “be baptized” and “you shall receive” are passive voice. This means that those to whom Peter spoke in Acts 2 were to be acted upon. It was not something that they do to or of themselves. Baptism in this sense is not a work. They are to SUBMIT to baptism and they are to RECEIVE the Spirit, all as a result of their faith. Baptism is not saving. One is not justified through baptism. One is saved when they are justified. Justification comes at the point when Jesus is trusted in true faith. True faith is the confident trust that one is right with God through the gift of Jesus Christ as one’s forgiveness and righteousness. This is a personal relationship between the believer and God. It is not merely a confession or mental acknowledgment. It is a profound assurance or confidence in Jesus. Since baptism come after this faith, baptism is not an act of obedience for salvation.
It is act of obedience to the God who has saved them, and that is something that can only be done by one who is mature enough to make that decision on their own, at what ever age that may be. However a baby does not have the ability to choose whom they will follow.
” Please read Col. 2:11-12, wherein Paul uses circumcision as a parallel to baptism. Since circumcision was only performed on infants...”
If circumcision is parallel to baptism, where does this place infant girls with baptism?
John 3:5 Jesus says no one can enter into the kingdom of God unless he is born again of the water and of the Holy Spirit.
He did not exclude children from that statement. What happens to the infant or young child who, God forbid, dies before being baptised at 8 or 12 years of age? Please re-read John 3:5 before answering.
There is also baptism of desire. Dismas truly believed and was granted salvation.
We thought ourselves lax to wait nearly three weeks to baptize our guys. But we had folks coming from out of town, and as a favor to them, we delayed the baptisms.
Right. And, similarly, it is the child's decision when to eat, sleep, obtain education, and do all the things that would ensure his well-being in the secular realm.
Parents are merely vessels of delivery and have no obligations whatsoever to care for their infants and children, in either their temporal or their spiritual helplessness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.