I was baptised about a year and a half or so ago, without actually informing my parents first (It was something I had intended to do later but the tank was set up at church and I went for it)
I personally believe that baptism should be done at an age where you can make the conscious choice, and only once you understand and can affirm that you wish to have god in your life.
I believe that god gave us free will for a very important reason, and that the holy spirit only fully enters into our lives once we exercise that free will and openly invite and accept Jesus into our lives. You cannot foist god or the holy spirit or jesus upon someone, as I believe baptism isn't something that you can "do" to someone, like people try to do to babies.

sndbay,
I think that in the many thousands who were baptized that there were babies included.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

sndbay,
I think that in the many thousands who were baptized that there were babies included.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

With all due respect, that is the problem that I have. If you can not say something is certain then maybe it should not be said at all. To say that you THINK that babies were included in a scripture is not evidence to prove your point.

When you start quoting scripture, taking from it what you want, and it obviously not saying what you are saying then you loose your credibility. That is why I believe that so many people turn away from Christainity, because so many people take scripture and try to make it say more than it actually does.

My God is fair, and when you say that He expects babies to be baptized you are essentially telling me that He did not grant every person free will.

Not only do I 'think' infants were baptized, the Church holds that baptism is absolutely necessary for all, including children. It can be shown both in the earlest of the Church's teachings.

Scripture tells us that, “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5). Its understood to mean that we cannot enter the Kingdom of God without baptism; obviously, this must include children. "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them." (Mark 10:14).

St. Irenaeus was a first century Bishop and martyr. Legend has it that St. Irenaeus was the small child described in Mark 9:35 lifted into the arms of Christ. Furthermore, Catholic tradition has it that Irenaeus was a student of the Apostle St. John. Thus we can conclude that he was an excellent witness of the first generation of Christianity, and heard it from the mouth of Christ.

In St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies (BookII, 22) he holds that baptism of all – including children – is not only allowed, but absolutely necessary for their salvation. “For He came [Christ] to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, Colossians 1:18 the Prince of life, Acts 3:15 existing before all, and going before all.”

During the Pelagian controversy St. Augustine in his book On the Soul, Book III, in the fourth century says, "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." (as cited in CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism )

JoeT

Where was it written in the OP that it had to be a Scriptural reference? The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ which began with Christ and teaches Truth using both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

I'll let the 'cult' wisecrack pass for now.

Yes the Catholic Church 'sprinkles' and it 'dunks'. Either way, it's a required sacrament to enter the Kingdom of God – which is, as I've already shown, in the Bible. All of which means what with regard to 'how did the Church view baptism of children"?

Even still, the question asked how the early Church viewed baptism. The early Church is the Catholic Church.

JoeT

P.S. Actually, more often the Latin Rite pours (it's called infusion ).

Purdue2010,
OK... BUT... please take your own advice about scripture references. Can you prove via Scripture that among those thousands baptized there were no infants?
JoeT and Donn, I specifically asked for what the bible said AND what early Church fathers said about baptizing children.
Thanks Joe for your post on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tertullian practiced law before his conversion in 197 A.D. he became a priest and was ordained in 200 A.D. He is known for being an apologist. Like St. Irenaeus he makes a good witness of the faith in the early Church.

Regarding baptism of children Tertullian suggests that not baptizing the young not only endangers the child, but also those responsible for the child, by holding back from Christ. Further, he suggests that children are called to be baptized because of their innocence. He also addresses the practical side of baptism – being that the graces received in baptism remain for life – the young learn by interacting with these graces.

“The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks. For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation. (Tertullian On Baptism, cht.18)

St. Augustine in his debates with Pelagius suggests that children are spiritually imperiled given the stain of original sin which binds the adult sinner to the innocence of youth.

“Whence they are compelled to class baptized infants in the number of believers, and to assent to the authority of the Holy Universal Church, which does not account those unworthy of the name of believers, to whom the righteousness of Christ could be, according to them, of no use except as believers. As, therefore, by the answer of those, through whose agency they are born again, the Spirit of righteousness transfers to them that faith which, of their own will, they could not yet have; so the sinful flesh of those, through whose agency they are born, transfers to them that injury, which they have not yet contracted in their own life. And even as the Spirit of life regenerates them in Christ as believers, so also the body of death had generated them in Adam as sinners. The one generation is carnal, the other Spiritual; the one makes children of the flesh, the other children of the Spirit; the one children of death, the other children of the resurrection; the one the children of the world, the other the children of God; the one children of wrath, the other children of mercy; and thus the one binds them under original sin, the other liberates them from the bond of every sin.” St. Augustine, On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book III)

Consequently, we see practical and spiritual reasons to loosen the bonds of sin from the infant.

JoeT

I did not let the insult against many churches go. A official warning was issued and the post deleted.

I find it funny that the church he is calling the "cult" was the one that formed the bible as we have it today. And it was along with the Orthodox Church the holder of Christian faith for 1500 years before any other demonition came along

The Word was with God and was God from the beginning.
It was Christ made flesh in the Word of God.

The Sopherim were the authorized revisers of the Sacred Text, and once their work being completed, the Massorites were the authorized custodians of it. The Text itself had been fixed before the Massorites were put in charge of it. All this work, under Ezra and Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order after the return from Babylon; and we read of it in Neh. 8:8..

And I causion anyone giving praise to man over God or thinking we should be thankful to someone other then God.

sndbay: I don't understand, how does your comment address Fred's question? For that matter, what matter does it address?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Purdue2010,
OK....BUT.... please take your own advice about scripture references. Can you prove via Scripture that among those thousands baptized there were no infants?
JoeT and Donn, I specifically asked for what the bible said AND what early Church fathers said about baptizing children.
Thanks Joe for your post on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

Actually, you have already proved my point, and I thank you for that. Because you can not produce one scripture reference that clearly states that infants or babies were baptized. That is the beauty of opinions, they remain that way until enough evidence is produced to prove otherwise.

Let us just agree to disagree. Your topic is very stimulating, and it makes people question. However, the problem is that no one will ever know the right answer until it is time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Purdue2010,
OK....BUT.... please take your own advice about scripture references. Can you prove via Scripture that among those thousands baptized there were no infants?
JoeT and Donn, I specifically asked for what the bible said AND what early Church fathers said about baptizing children.
Thanks Joe for your post on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

And so far you have gotten lots of scripture references that specifically tell you that this is not what the Bible teaches. There seems to be a lot of people who choose to go by some book or another that is Not the Bible in this discussion. Why is that?

There is Scriptural testimony of baptizing of the young. “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there." (Acts 16:15) Its unlikely that this woman would have left the children behind, no more likely than a Jew would have left his male children uncircumcised on day 9.

At the feet of Paul and Silas the magistrate cryed, “what must I do”. "And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. Himself was baptized, and his entire house immediately" (Acts 16:33) It would have been a strange household not to have had children. Further evidence testifies that Paul “baptized the household of Stephanus" (1 Corinthians 1:16), as a Jewish father is obliged to circumcise his 8 day old son.

The relation to circumcision is clear; so what did it mean to the Jew? Circumcision wasn't that unusual a ritual in ancient times, the times of Abraham. Brit milah literally means Covenant of Circumcision. Somewhat to my surprise, I've come to find that this was not uniquely a Jewish custom, it seems a great many in the near east practice some form of circumcision. It seems that certain classes of Egyptians did it, as did some Indian tribes. What is unique is that God gave Abraham the commandment to circumcise (Cf. Gen. xvii, 11 and Lev. Xii,3) The Jewish ritual had both spiritual and hygienic purposes not to mention a unique marking of the male body. To the Jew in Abraham's time, Moses' time and the Jew in Christ's time it's a physical mark of a spiritual connection with God. Brit milah was an obligation both for the father and for the child. Not only was the child to be circumcised on the eighth day of the child's life birth, but failing the father and child suffered a spiritual separation. The child would continue to suffer spiritual excision, (unable to enter the Kingdom of God to come) until as an adult he could be circumcised. As I understand it the ritual that accompanies the brit milah is a solemn occasion with prayers and blessings recited with the child receiving his Hebrew name. I mention all of this to understand that the Jew did not take circumcision lightly; it marked them spiritually and physically. It joined their manhood to God. (Cf. If there is interest Judaism 101: Birth and the First Month of Life )

The important points here is that circumcision is a Divine convent applied to ALL Jews. Consequently when Paul writes, “In whom also you are circumcised” we understand that God is doing the circumcision in baptism. And equally important is that this is “a “circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ . Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him up from the dead.“ Clearly Paul is equating baptism with the definitive mark of circumcision; circumcision that is called baptism, obligatory to both father and child. Every Jewish ear in the crowd would have understood. Baptism is spiritual joining of man to God and until accomplished one suffers the penalty of kareit, (separation). For child and adult alike “he hath quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: (Col. iii, 11-13)

These biblical testimonies were so well understood in Paul's day it was not necessary to mention them, it was culturally understood that circumcision and baptism were common. So, why be so insistent for “Scriptural References”? I'm not under any delusion that such references have given the insight to run out and baptize your children, even though it would be advisable. Especially, when there are utterances made by Christ Himself rationalized away. Plain simple language, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me” (John 6:55 sqq.) Why not baptize the children, after all they won't get the measles?

JoeT

Joe,
Thanks much for that additional information.
It IS very interesting.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

And so far you have gotten lots of scripture references that specifically tell you that this is not what the Bible teaches.

---

Is that right? I've read through the entire thread and have yet to see a passage of Scripture which says whatever you do don't baptize infants.

The real issue here is original sin. Those who reject the notion outright see no reason to baptize infants. Moreover, they take a Pelagian view of the sacraments, according to which they are just symbolic acts with no real spiritual or supernatural power. Those who do believe in original sin do in fact see a reason to baptize infants, since they want the healing of the sacrament to begin as soon as possible. If you think of the sacrament as nothing more than a public proclamation of your current state of mind--belief in Christ as your Savior--and so not a spiritual reality that confers grace, then there really isn't any reason to make a big deal out of it. But if you believe that baptism does confer grace, why on earth would you want to delay it? You wouldn't, of course, because you would want God's grace to fortify the soul of the young.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

The important points here is that circumcision is a Divine convent applied to ALL Jews. Consequently when Paul writes, “In whom also you are circumcised” we understand that God is doing the circumcision in baptism. And equally important is that this is “a “circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ . Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him up from the dead.“ Clearly Paul is equating baptism with the definitive mark of circumcision; circumcision that is called baptism, obligatory to both father and child. Every Jewish ear in the crowd would have understood. Baptism is spiritual joining of man to God and until accomplished one suffers the penalty of kareit, (separation). For child and adult alike “he hath quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: (Col. iii, 11-13)

---

There is refer: in scripture that we must put on the circumcision of the heart. In (Jere 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench [it], because of the evil of your doings)

This is choice, free will to follow and do the will of God. So when cirsumcision of the heart is compared to baptism, there remains a choice in which is elected to do by the heart and soul of man. Giving your soul to Christ, and living a righteous life to follow HIM (1 Peter 2:24-25 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls)

Chirst is then the hand of power and strength that guides us. If we care to follow HIS footsteps as scripture in the Word of God has instructed, and not man. Look at the example Christ , HIMSELF gave us for baptism. How old was Christ when baptized?
God's plan was never to make any of us puppets being attached by the strings that others control our actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

God's plan was never to make any of us puppets being attached by the strings that others control our actions.

---

Right. So what's your point? Do imagine that anyone here has said otherwise?

To the Jew circumcision is “a sign of the covenant between [God] and you… flesh for a perpetual covenant” (Gen xvii, 11 & 13) and to those who weren't circumcised “that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant." (Gen xvii, 14) This is exactly the same understanding that the Catholic has of baptism. Baptism is a physical sign of water and a spiritual joining of man with God. And, man failing baptism “cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Thus what is given to an 8 day old Jewish baby is also given to an 8 day old Christian child in the New Covenant, a joining of the spirit of God with man, a rebirth of hope and the promises, to all with or without foreskin, a second circumcision, “Make thee knives of stone, and circumcise the second time the children of Israel.” (Josh 5:2), a renewed relationship with God becoming the adopted sons of God. To withhold this from your own child is as foreign to the Catholic psyche as it is to Jew not circumcising his son.

This scriptural reference in Jeremiah illustrates just how joined to God the Jew felt through circumcision. More particularly the cited passage illustrates how this rite was ingrained in psychological makeup of the Jew . “Be circumcised to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your hearts, ye men of Juda, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my indignation come forth like fire, and burn, and there be none that can quench it... ” (Jeremiah I've, 4).

In conclusion, we do have scriptural references for infant baptism.

JoeT

Akoue and JoeT,
You both have made excellent points about the value of baptizing infants.
Thanks much,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

To withhold this from your own child is as foreign to the Catholic psyche as it is to Jew not circumcising his son.

---

Yet scripture says we wait for the Spirit of hope, and that Spirit of hope is the reveal truth and fullnes of Christ Jesus.. How would baptism of infants permit the infant that liberty to love and to come follow Christ in faith?

Gal 5:5-6 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Use not liberty to the resources we avail ourselves of in attempting or performing anything to the flesh!

Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Liberty to love and be faithful in righteousness, as God created us to be in the beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

This scriptural reference in Jeremiah illustrates just how joined to God the Jew felt through circumcision. More particularly the cited passage illustrates how this rite was ingrained in psychological makeup of the Jew . “Be circumcised to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your hearts, ye men of Juda, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my indignation come forth like fire, and burn, and there be none that can quench it...” (Jeremiah iv, 4).

In conclusion, we do have scriptural references for infant baptism.

JoeT

---

I pray do not be blind to the words that are written, circumcise yourselves to the Lord. This is a liberty to love in free will choice ye men of Judah...

Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench [it], because of the evil of your doings.