Posted on 06/29/2012 4:31:04 PM PDT by NYer
It is a simple historical fact that the Church has always baptized infants. Even our earliest documents speak of the practice. For example the Apostolic Tradition written about 215 A.D. has this to say:
The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. (Apostolic Tradition # 21)
Scripture too confirms that infants should be baptized if you do the math. For example
People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (Luke 18:15-17 NIV)
So the Kingdom of God belongs to the little Children (in Greek brephe indicating little Children still held in the arms, babes). And yet elsewhere Jesus also reminds that it is necessary to be baptized in order to enter the Kingdom of God:
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. (John 3:5 NIV)
If the Kingdom of God belongs to little children and we are taught that we cannot inherit it without baptism then it follows that Baptizing infants is necessary and that to fail to do so is a hindering of the little children which Jesus forbade his apostles to do.
So both Tradition and Scripture affirm the practice of baptizing infants. Strange then that some among the Protestants (not all) should criticize us for this practice. Even stranger that the Baptists are usually be the ones to do so. You’d think with a name like “Baptist” they’d be more into baptism. (Truth be told, most of the other Protestant denominations do baptize infants). It is primarily Baptists and some Evangelicals who refuse the practice.
Part of the reason for this is that they seem to water down (pardon the pun) the fuller meaning of baptism, no longer seeing it as washing away sins and conferring righteousness per se. Rather they seem to see it more as a symbol of faith already received when they said the sinners prayer and accepted Christ as their savior. No time here to argue the full logic of their position and why it falls short of a biblical and Traditional understanding of Baptism.
But, for those of us who do continue the ancient and biblical practice of baptizing infants, the practice says some very wonderful things about the gratuity of salvation and the goodness of God. Consider these points:
1. The baptism of infants is a powerful testimony to the absolute gratuity (gift) of salvation. Infants have achieved nothing, have not worked, have not done anything to “merit” salvation. The Catechism puts it this way: The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. (CCC # 1250) The Church is clear, salvation cannot be earned or merited, and infant baptism teaches that most clearly. Salvation is pure gift.
How strange and ironic that some of the very denominations which claim that Catholics teach salvation by works (we do not) also refuse to baptize infants. They claim that a certain age of maturity is required so that the person understands what they are doing. But this sounds like achievement. That the child must meet some requirement seems like a work, or the attainment of some meritorious status wherein one is now old enough to “qualify” for baptism and salvation. “Qualifications….Achievement (of age)….Requirements….it all sounds like what they accuse us of: namely works and merit.
To be clear then, the Catholic understanding of the gratuity of salvation is far more radical than many non-Catholics understand. We baptize infants who are not capable of meriting, attaining or earning.
2. The Baptism of infants also powerfully attests to the fact that the beauty of holiness and righteousness is available to everyone regardless of age. To be baptized means to be washed. Washed of what? Original Sin. At first this seems like a downer, “Are you saying my baby has sin?” Yep. All of us inherit Original Sin from Adam and Eve. We are born into a state of alienation from God that is caused by sin. The Scriptures are clear: [S]in entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned (Rom 5:12). So even infants are in need of the saving touch of God.
Now why would we wish to delay this salvation and resulting holiness for 7 to 12 years? The Catechism says this, Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by Original Sin, children also have need of new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and be brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God….The Church and parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth. (CCC # 1250).
St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage in the 3rd Century was asked if it was OK to wait to the 8th day to baptize since baptism had replaced circumcision. He responded with a strong no: But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day We [the bishops] all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. (Epist# 58).
So then, here is the beauty, that infants are summoned to receive the precious gift of holiness and righteousness and that they are summoned to a right relationship with God by having their sin purged and holiness infused. Infants are called to this dignity and should not be denied it. With this done, some of the holiest and most innocent days of our lives may well be our first years. Then as the will begins to manifest and reason begins to dawn the grace of holiness gives us extra strength to fight against the sinful world that looms.
3. The Baptism of Infants also attests to the fact that faith is gift for every stage of development- To be baptized is to receive the gift of faith. It is baptism that gives the true faith. Even with adults, true faith does not come until baptism. Prior to that there is a kind of prevenient faith, but it is not the Theological Virtue of Faith.
Now faith is not only an intellectual assent to revealed doctrine. It is that but it is more. To have faith is also be be in a righteous and trusting relationship with God. An infant relates to his parents long before he speaks or his rational mind is fully formed. He trusts his parents and depends on them. It is the same with God. The infant trusts and depends of God and is in a right relationship with God. With his parents, this relationship of trust leads the infant to begin to speak and understand as he grows. Here too it is the same with God. As his mind awakens the infant’s faith grows. It will continue to grow until the day he dies (hopefully) as an old man.
That faith accompanies us through every stage of our life and develops as we do is essential to its nature. An infant needs faith no less than an old man. An infant benefits from faith no less than a teenager or an adult.
To argue as some Protestants do that you have to be a certain age before faith can exist, hardly seems to respect the progressive nature of faith which is able to bless EVERY stage of our human journey.
I have some very vivid memories of my experience of God prior to seven years of age and I will say that God was very powerfully present to me in my early years, in many ways even more so than now, when my mind sometimes “gets in the way.”
Another post too long. Forgive me dear reader. But please spread the word. Too many Catholics are waiting months, even years to have their children baptized. Precious time is lost by this laxity.
Infant Baptism speaks powerfully of the love that God has for everyone he has created and of his desire to have everyone in a right and saving relationship with Him. Surely baptism alone isn’t enough. The child must be raised in the faith. It is the nature of faith that it grows by hearing and seeing. Children must have faith given at baptism but that faith must be explained and unwrapped like a precious gift for them. Don’t delay. Get started early and teach your child the faith they have received every day.
Other than Christ Himself, who can be found in the scriptures to be speaking more authoritatively concerning baptism than the one whom himself baptized Jesus, with water?
For those who take the words of God seriously, it's pointed out right here that baptize does not mean water...And of course, no one even needs to read this verse to understand that...
So who do we believe, olofob's private interpretation of what he thinks God means, or the plain words of God???
And which was a figure of what spiritual took place, but water did not purify from sin, but the faith which one expresses in baptism, in conscience toward God, thus souls were “purified by faith” even before baptism, as shown to you before, and Rome must allow.
However, consistent with form, rather than actually interact with what extensively opposes your polemic, you typically just dismiss such and assert the same things. I prefer Catholics who try to engage in actual exchange. Bye. Again.
“baptize does not mean water”
It does, however, mean “immerse” in original Greek. When John the Baptist baptized Jesus, et al., in rivers, what did he immerse them in? Hot chocolate? Warm and fuzzy thoughts?
“And which was a figure of what spiritual took place, but water did not purify from sin, but the faith which one expresses in baptism, in conscience toward God, thus souls were “purified by faith” even before baptism, as shown to you before, and Rome must allow.”
Then baptism in water was symbolic, an outward sign of faith and it was this act of faith that ha value?
My Bible is the Douay-Rheims, not a modern translation.
I wonder if you are a sedevacantist or SSPX, but while i can sympathize with your aversion to the typical modern translations, especially the New American Bible (NAB) the reality is that your church (if you live in America) has esteemed the NAB to be its official translation for Mass, thus setting it as the standard:
• There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn. — http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
In fact the DRB does not even apear on the Bishop’s list of approved translations,(http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations) though that does not mean RCs cannot use it.
The Douay-Rheims is a word for word translation of the original, the Latin Vulgate.
Again, this is not so, unless you have the 1609, which presents its own problems due to the issues with the Vulgate:
• Catholic Answers: The Douay-Rheims currently on the market is also not the original, 1609 version. It is technically called the "Douay-Challoner" version because it is a revision of the Douay-Rheims done in the mid-eighteenth century by Bishop Richard Challoner [who corrected it according to the Clementine edition of the Vulgate]. He also consulted early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that the Douay Bible currently on the market is not simply a translation of the Vulgate (which many of its advocates do not realize). — http://www.catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide (with official stamps)
• ...as Pius XII pointed out (DAS 20), this does not mean that the Vulgate always reflects accurately what is in the original texts. Sometimes it doesn't...
Even then, the Douay is not simply a translation of Jerome's original. There is no pure edition of the Vulgate available, any more than there is a single, pure edition of the original Greek and Hebrew. When the Douay was translated, there were a number of editions of the Vulgate that differed from each other in varying degrees.
Furthermore, the editions of the Douay now in circulation are the Douay-Challoner version (or even more properly, revisions of the Douay-Challoner version), which has been corrected in light of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that it is not a pure translation of the Vulgate.
Challoner's revisions were extensive — more than Douay-Rheims Onlyists commonly admit. They were not limited to updating spelling and punctuation. Regarding the extent of the revisions, Bernard Ward notes, "The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they 'almost amounted to a new translation.' So also, Cardinal "Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published'" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910 ed.,s.v., "Douay Bible").
Free Of Protestant Bias?
While translator bias is a fact to be contended with, Douay-Rheims Onlyists often accuse contemporary translations of being tainted by Protestant translations.
But there's another side to that story. Just as the original Douay came to influence the KJV, the KJV itself came to influence the Douay. Ward notes: "In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized [i.e., King James] Version."
— 2002 by Catholic Answers, Inc.; http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=45541857&CFTOKEN=30609021
While Trent did establish the Vulgate as the official Bible for that time, it did not specify which edition, nor elevate it above the original language manuscripts (though some disagree). The lack of uniformity among Vulgate editions resulted in the embarrassing Sistine Vulgate.
However, while in condescension to us RCs appeal to Scripture in attempting to support traditions of men, yet RC doctrines do not depend upon the weight of Scriptural warrant for assurance of their veracity, only that they do not contradict her — according to her autocratic judgment (and thus Bible study among laity was historically rare) — and thus they do not need Scripture for things infant baptism anymore than they do for the Assumption (which is a "assumption").
If not completed here during your life, you do it over the veil in Purgatory. God is perfectly just.
Thank God He is merciful as well, and that it is in this life in which the world, the flesh and the devil temps us that practical holiness is worked, and thus even the Son of God was tried and “perfected,” (Heb. 5:9) in the sense of being temped in all points as we are, (Heb. 4:15) and overcoming.
In every place which describes the postmortem place or condition of believers (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2) show it is with the Lord, in whose presence there is fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11). it is with the Lord, and i have dealt rather extensively with attempts to contrive such texts as 1Cor. 3 as describing purgatory, which should need be repeated.
Peter DIDN’T say do penance to be baptized. Acts 2:38
But that is what your chosen translation says:
What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:37b,38)
The order then according to this is to do acts of penance, then be baptized, rather than decide (repent) to believe the message of the gospel and thus be baptized, in identification with the Lord Jesus, confessing repentant faith Him (preaching the gospel, and believing and being baptism are differentiated in 1Cor. 1:17)
The “do” is a problem for non-Catholics since they believe the heresy of ‘faith alone.’ Sola Fide contributes to so many of the objections about the faith.
Actually, the “heresy” or oft-repeated canard among RCs is that sola fide equates to a faith that is alone, when it distinctly does not.. Rather it means that while faith and works go together like light and heat, it is precisely faith that appropriates justification, as seen in Acts 10 and allowed in the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire, but by not by a kind of faith that would remain alone. See REFORMATION FAITH + WORKS. And in reality, what Roman Catholicism fosters is the very thing that her apologist accuse sola fide of promoting, that of “easy believism,” as due to Rome's promoting of herself and her powers and merits, Catholics trust that she can get the most nominal of Catholics into glory (eventually, though Ratzinger speculates that purgatory may involve "existential" rather than "temporal" duration; something one experiences, but experiences in a moment), and whom she treats as members in life and in death (but when they converted to become conservative evangelicals is the greatest concern shown).
To reject what the first Christians believed, well, you can’t say you didn’t know.
Indeed, Rome herself rejects what some of the first post-apostolic Christians believed, including some beliefs about baptism. After all, she claims to judge the fathers, more than vice versa, and Scripture only means what she says it means, as she has autocratically infallibly declares she is infallible.
Moreover, we know relative little of all they (whoever they all the so-called “fathers” were) wrote, and their sometimes perverse views included such beliefs as that marriage is the lesser of two evils, and is no other than a species of fornication, and that all sexual intercourse is unclean, and cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, though it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate.
The disagreement in the discussion is over infant baptism and I commented about another, the meaning of Jesus’ term “born again.”
And which i briefly commented on.
Meaning it is the faith that baptism expresses, confessing the crucified and risen Jesus as Lord in “body language” - which is essentially no different than by mouth (Rm. 10:9,10) - that is what appropriates justification. Thus souls can be saved prior to baptism, and which Rome also allows, even if as an exception.
But baptism is the commanded initial act of obedience of faith, , and Biblical ordinances can be a channel of grace, (1Tim. 4:14) which some call “sacraments.”
But any act of faith can be considered “sacramental” in the real sense of the term, as God gives grace to those who obey Him in faith, while the error of institutionalized religion is to foster faith in the power of the institution, and making rituals an automatic channel of grace and regardless of the personal holiness of the minister, as long as his “intent” is right, and largely promoting perfunctory professions among the recipients.
guilty as charged, i find it extremely difficult, if not impossible to have an actual exchange with someone who confuses the length of a post with actually dealing with the question asked ( it doesn’t fool anyone ) and someone who continually claims the Scriptures teach something they don’t.
exhibit A- the question was asked where does the Bible ever say Baptism is symbolic. the “answer” given once one gets past the pseudo intellectual nonsense, is 1 Peter 3:21.
the claim is made it says baptism is a “figure”, IT DOES NOT. the claim is made it says souls were purified by faith even before baptism, IT DOES NOT.
The verse teaches ONE BAPTISM and that we are SAVED BY BAPTISM.
for all the pseudo intellectual nonsense, it appears the poster does not understand “types” in the OT and the “antitypes” in the NT. I will try and help him.
the OT contains mant types that are symbolic or figurative that are then contrasted in the NT by the antitype, which is actually the REALITY that God wishes to show us.
some examples, Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac is the OT type for the Father willing to sacrifice His Son as the antitype. the ark in the OT was a type of Jesus saving all those in Him as the antitype. get it? the antitype is the REALITY.
so in 1 Peter 3 we find Peter using the 8 people saved thru water in Noah’s day as the type AND BAPTISM IS THE ANTITYPE THAT SAVES US TODAY THRU WATER. it must be embarrassing to Baptist’s who understand type/antitypes in the Scriptures to see someone try and make the case that 1 Peter says Baptism is a “figure”
the Church has always rejected the false choice between faith and baptism. the two can’t be seperated.
so 1 Peter 3:21 teaches exactly what Paul wrote in Titus 3:5, he saved us , not because of any deeds done by is in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION AND RENEWAL IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.
again, i invite anyone to answer the following questions:
why did Jesus command baptism?
where does the Bible teach two baptisms?
where does the Bible say baptism is symbolic?
where does the Bible teach baptism is to be done as a first act of obedience?
where does the Bible teach baptism is an outward sign of what has happened inwardly already?
I truly regret not bringing my camera to last week's Baptism. In such a small parish, the celebration of Baptism is private and by invitation, though most families welcome visitors to this glorious event. This is the only photo I have found and it is of the procession at the conclusion of the rite.
Do you see that small boy carrying a candle? His name is Daniel. He is the 2nd child born to these parents. Their first child, Michael, was born with multiple, undiagnosed birth defects. The parents went to extraordinary lengths to save Michael's life. After 9 months of procedures in one of the best hospitals, the medical staff sent them to Boston Children's Hospital. There, he underwent 14 hours of surgery after which a team of the best pediatric physicians in the nation told the parents that "everything known to modern medicine" had been done and there was no way to save the child's life. They called our pastor who immediately drove to Boston to be at their side and administer the Last Rites. Michael was placed in the arms of his mother and the life support machines were turned off. He passed away in total peace in the loving embrace of his mom.
At his funeral, a young woman, dressed in black, began the procession, carrying a large, framed photo of Michael. The parents followed the coffin and the mother grasped her husband's arm each time her legs gave out. This was a tremendous test of faith. However, one year later, Daniel was born. And, the following year, their daughter, Joelle was born, one day shy of Daniel's birthday. Two year later, Gabriel, the baby baptized last Sunday, entered this world.
Daniel will be entering Kindergarten this year. He is a truly remarkable child. At age two, during the post liturgy coffee hour, his mother noticed he was missing. But then she turned her head and saw Daniel, peacefully asleep in front of the altar. At age 4, Daniel asked the pastor if he could serve as an altar boy. Another priest might have said "no". But our pastor chose to acknowledge his request. Being short of stature, his grandmother fashioned a surplice to fit Daniel. This year, at the conclusion of Pre-K, someone asked Daniel what he wanted to be when he grew up. His response: a priest!
At last Sunday's baptism and chrismation for his new brother, Daniel tugged on the priest's robe and asked if he could sing a hymn taught by his mother. The priest acknowledged his request and outfitted him with a microphone. After the procession, with his mother carrying an icon of the Blessed Mother, Daniel stood tall and proud before all the congregation and sang a Maronite hymn in Arabic. The translation goes something like this: "We learn from God how to live our lives. Teach me Lord". At a certain point he hesitated and the entire congregation took up the refrain, encouraging the young child to continue.
I don't know how else to convey the beauty of such a personalized celebration of the Sacrament of Baptism. The children have all been given biblical names. The parents place faith above all material wealth. Their first child, Michael, has now been memorialized though an annual scholarship for parish children. Also note in this photo that the mother is carrying an icon of the Blessed Mother. For me, it was a flashback moment to their son :Michael's funeral. God has blessed and rewarded these young parent for enduring the ultimate test - the loss of a child.
Why not just be honest for a change? You are NOT "inviting" anyone to answer the questions you pose - seeing as they HAVE been answered satisfactorily, repeatedly and Biblically - it seems you only want the answers to be your own presupposed answers, aren't you? You pose these SAME questions across multiple threads whenever you start losing an argument about any other subject. Like Obama and his "race card", you pull this one out as a last resort in an attempt to stop all disagreements and present yourself and your chosen religion as THE authority. Every time you do this, you only make this more apparent than the last time you flipped the card out. You even made your SCREEN NAME the same as your "trump" card!
Like I asked earlier, why not just be honest? I believe you expect whatever you claim is your interpretation of what your religion says MUST be the truth and only the truth and anyone who attempts to prove something else is cast off as ignorant. Don't be surprised the next time you pull the same canard, that you are ignored completely - I know I will. You will only have yourself to blame.
why did Jesus command baptism?
Immersion in the Holy Spirit (baptism) is the means by which we are joined to Christ and made fellow-heirs. It is when God marks us as His own.
Water baptism is also important. Its value is in sanctification - separation from the world.
Some examples, not exhaustive:
Mark 1: 8 - 8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
Acts 10: “45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
where does the Bible say baptism is symbolic?
That it is nothing more than a symbol? Nowhere. That it involves symbolism?
“3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” - Romans 10
1 Cor 10: “10 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.”
where does the Bible teach baptism is to be done as a first act of obedience?
It doesn’t, explicitly. However, it is obviously an act of obedience, and it obviously was done very promptly - unlike in the modern day:
“30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.” - Acts 16
where does the Bible teach baptism is an outward sign of what has happened inwardly already?
Apart from the indwelling Holy Spirit, there is no reason to baptize. First comes faith, then immersion (baptism) in the Holy Spirit, and then water baptism follows. But it is the inward act that gives water baptism its value:
“In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” - Ephesians 1
Gal 3: “2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.”
1 Cor 12: “12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”
Ephesians 4: “4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
1 Peter 3: “...in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...”
There is no case in scripture of a non-believer being baptized. Nor is there any reason to do so. If baptism brought regeneration, we ought to forcibly baptize everyone in water, giving them life and repentance and the gift of the Holy Spirit. But you can sprinkle away until someone drowns without giving them faith or life...
Amen. There is a reason why such men as him were once forbidden to engage in such debates. Their means of argumentation as well as their arguments are an argument against the overall premise of their church.
I would pose the additional question: Why was Jesus baptized?
Thank you for sharing that - what a beautiful testimony. We had a Baptism during the Spanish Mass at St. Luke’s today, a little girl about 14 months old, in a white satin dress with silver sequins and a little flower crown. (Janet Guadalupe - Deacon Rafael was saying “Yaneth,” but I saw the name embroidered on her tiny purse!)
At the end of Mass while the announcements were being read, Janet climbed up into the sanctuary and sat on the step in front of the pulpit, looking very pleased with herself. Dona Edra, reading the announcements, couldn’t understand why everyone was chuckling. We also had two newborn babies presented, a boy and a girl. Both mothers were “older,” like me!
You are indeed guilty as charged.
If you actually read responses last week you would have seen that your questions and the argument behind them were answered, including that “like figure” does NOT mean type and antitype, with baptism being the reality, as is the case in Heb. 9:24 (representative of the true - look it up) which is the only other place antitupon occurs, but that both are representatives.
And which was shown you and dismissed, as is your fringe Catholic contention that Cornelius and company were not forgiven and born again before baptism.
As for your protest over my laborious content which refutes you, do you know how to make paragraphs consistently?
Go find another RC that agrees with you on Cornelius, as for you, this is it. Bye.
Tears in my eyes. My grandson (Down Syndrome) is doing well, and my son and daughter in law went to the Ukraine to adopt a Down Syndrome girl. She is a nurse, so that helps a lot.
Hey, I have had a thought as this thread progressed. In the Old Testament, the Rite of Circumcision was performed when the child was eight days old.
When the New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament, did the Infant Baptism replace the Infant Circumscion?
That’s one of the best reasons in my book for the perpeutuation of this tradition.
Any thoughts.
“I would pose the additional question: Why was Jesus baptized?”
“Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”” - Matt 3:15
“All righteousness. There was no particular precept in the Old Testament requiring this, but he chose to give the sanction of his example to the baptism of John, as to a Divine ordinance. The phrase “all righteousness,” here, is the same as a righteous institution or appointment. Jesus had no sin. But he was about to enter on his great work. It was proper that he should be set apart by his forerunner, and show his connection with him, and give his approbation to what John had done. Also, he was baptized that occasion might be taken, at the commencement of his work, for God publicly to declare his approbation of him, and his solemn appointment to the office of Messiah.” - Albert Barnes
I’ve read that some Jews of the time believed in immersion in the mikveh as a sign of seriousness and dedication as you started some task for God:
“The Mishnah attributes to Ezra a decree that each male should immerse himself before praying or studying. There were several Jewish groups that observed ritual immersion every day to assure readiness for the coming of the Messiah. The Church Fathers mentioned one of these groups called Hemerobaptists which means “daily bathers” in Greek. Among those used to regular immersion were the Essenes and others that the Talmud calls tovelei shaharit or “dawn bathers.”
The ritual washing was to separate oneself from the world. Since this marked the start of his public ministry, perhaps Jesus was baptized to show to others that he was separate from the world and entering a special time of dedication to the Father.
John MacArthur argues:
“In the Book of Isaiah in chapter 53 it says, “He was numbered with the...what?...transgressors, sinners.” I believe the supreme element...listen...in the baptism of Jesus was the identification of the sinless Son of God with sinners; and I think the first thing Jesus ever did when He stepped out of obscurity, and He stepped into the limelight, was declare the very primary reason for which He came, and that was to identify Himself with sinners...He who had no sin took His place among those who had no righteousness. He who was without sin went down into a baptism that was only for sinners, and He was saying as loud and clear as ever He could say, “I take My place with sinners.” And let it be clear from the start that this Jesus is the friend of sinners. Let it be clear that Paul was right. He who knew no sin became what? Sin for us. His ministry began that way. How fitting. He didn’t come to just teach. He didn’t come just to set an example. He didn’t come to be a moralist. He didn’t come to be a revolutionary. He came to identify with sinners, and He was numbered with the transgressors; and there in His baptism He identified with sinners. Even in His birth, He identified with sinners. He was the Child of Mary, who was a sinner.
In His death, He identified with sinners. Two, one on each side, and He bore the sins of every sinner who ever lived. Listen, in order to bring sinners to righteousness, He had to go to the depths of the waters of death. He had to bear sin. He had to identify with sinners. There was no other way to fulfill all righteousness.
And in Isaiah 53:11, it says, “My righteous servant shall make many righteous...How?...He shall bear the sin of many.” Isaiah 53:11, “My righteous servant shall bear the sin of many.” Jesus submitted to John’s baptism as a symbolic act of identifying with sinners who were seeking salvation; and I’ll go a step further. I believe that His baptism was a symbol of His death. I believe it was a symbol of His dying as He went into that water, and a symbol of His rising as He came out.”
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2190/the-commissioning-of-the-king
If baptism is the replacement for circumcision, then it should occur after birth - spiritual birth.
You will note circumcision wasn’t meant to make someone a Jew. I was circumcised, but that didn’t make me a Jew. You can baptize an infant, but it won’t make him a believer.
Converts to Judaism were baptized and circumcised - in recognition of their conversion. Not to create a conversion.
I’m just interesting in the timing of both events.
The rite of circumcision and the baptism of infants both emphasize that the child is brought into the covenant with God by gratuitious acts, not by his own power, and through the instruments of his natural family and the faith community.
Circumcision as a medical procedure is no more relevant to the topic than is bathing for cleanliness, as St. Peter emphasized.
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.