Who practices infant Baptism?

Question

Oh....only about 90% of the Christian world, both now, or in the entire history of Christianity.

From the time of the Apostles:

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

ALL of the Church did for the first 1,500 years of her existence.

Today, this would include:

Roman Catholics
Eastern Orthodox
The Anglican Communion
Lutherans
Methodists
Arminians
Wesleyans
Presbyterians
United Church of Christ
Evangelical and Reformed Churches
The Congregationalist Churches

And somehow all these Christians are WRONG??? How??

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.

Answer 1

Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

Baptism is a Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin,
Biblical references: Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:5; Matt 19:14;
Luke 18:15-16; Col 2:11-12; Rom 6:13; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; 1 Cor 1:16; Mark 16:16;
Rom 5:18-19; Mark 10:14; Jos 24:15; Matt 8:5ff; Matt 15:21

Answer 2

There is some dispute over this, as infant baptism is fairly common in modern Christianity and therefore there is a motive for justifying it. The basis of infant baptism's justification seems to be the portions in Acts where it says the "whole house" was baptized. However, that may be a too literal reading of those passages. Compare passages where "all of Judea" was supposedly going out to see John the Baptist. What is meant is that John the Baptist was getting a lot of attention but it doesn't mean every single individual went to see him. In the same way, baptism of a "whole house" (the Philippian jailer and Cornelius, both in Acts), doesn't mean that everyone right down to the infants was baptized. Where it is clear who is being baptized, it is evident that the baptism happens upon a person's making a decision to be baptized. At Pentecost, Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch and other places, all involve adults making conscious decisions. Nowhere do we have a clear example of someone bringing their infant to be baptized. The best we can say is that infant baptism is a possibility in some accounts. Those who say it has no scriptural support are on firmer ground. Some suggest that baptism is to the New Testament what circumcision was to the Old. However, this is not stated in the New Testament anywhere and requires much inferring with little concrete evidence of such a continuity. Add in the fact that baptism is considered a sign of repentance, of a change of life etc. and all elaborate arguments aside, the simplest and best interpretation appears to be believer's baptism, which excludes infants as being unable to make such a choice. One argument states that we don't see anything excluding the teaching. One Anabaptist writer sardonically said that neither do we see teachings excluding baptism of livestock. The fact that it is not specifically condemned does not de facto make it acceptable practice. This is a matter which has generated much discussion and arguments for both sides, so I cannot end the debate here. EDIT: Catholics are at least consistent, they believe that baptism saves ya. So baptize 'em young and if'n they grow up and kill granma they's at least goin' to heaven, all other evidence to the contrary.

Answer 3

You Quoting From 200 Years After The Last Of the Apostles Died.There is No Verse In The Entire Bible Of Infant Baptism. Jesus was Not Baptist as an Infant. Since it was said By An Angel to Mary, " What you will Conceive will be Called Holy".. Why Then was that Holy Child Not Baptized an An Infant? Think of the Pattern that would have set.
. Following the Vatican II council, the church revised its infant baptism rites. Yes, the church is still baptizing babies, but now the parents must first give assurances that they will bring up the child as a Catholic. Decreed the Vatican: “If these assurances are not really serious, there can be grounds for delaying the sacrament; and if they are certainly non-existent, the sacrament should even be refused.”—L’Osservatore Romano.

Answer 4

I don't think that all these Christians are "wrong". Denominations for the most part believe in the same things,it's just that some focus more on one than the other at certain times.Baptism has over time been realized as a personal choice. With the thought in mind,I'm sure,that it's not truly going to mean anything unless the recipient WANTS to be a child of God and be cleansed.Reborn.Not to say it doesn't give the family great comfort in knowing but when they grow,if they are not living a life for God,the baptism is for not.Some believe it guarantees us a place in heaven and if that's true...these Christians have the head up but I think it may have to do with our lifestyle as a whole and maybe not what our parents chose for us.

Answer 5

The Waters of Baptism are not a magic elixir !
I see so many adults so anxious to have a baby baptized that they would lie about Church attendance , cheat on written forms, connive ....It become s a ludicrous farce and for what .
If the adults involved have no intention to raise the child in a particular Faith -what do they think the Sacrament of baptism is going to do for the child ?
Some times I think people think of a priest as a wizard waving a magic wand over this child and the child is somehow changed forever.
A child learns by observing the people around him/her. He /she has no way of remembering the baptism- in short the value of dedicating a child to Christ is of little value if the child never learns about the Faith of the parents.
Baptism is not a magic spell !!!

Answer 6

Those who reject infant Baptism claim that there is no biblical warrant for including infants and children in Baptism. But the real question is, does the Bible specifically exclude infants and children from Baptism? Definitely 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." The Greek word for children in this text is paidia, which means babes in arms. What means other than Baptism has God provided whereby little children can be brought to Jesus? Baptism is the only way we know of. If you want to obey the command of the Lord Jesus concerning your little children, have them baptized!

Answer 7

Baptism is an area that shows that Apostolic Tradition is so important. Baptists and the majority Paedobaptists(child-baptizers) often use the same Bible verses to come to opposite conclusions because of the Church interpreters and church Traditions that they use in reading the Bible.

Answer 8

It is not biblical a child is not responsible till they reach an accountable age Jesus left us an example to be followed and all that repented and were baptized were adults acts 2:38 and they were immursed not sprinkled nowhere in the bible does it talk about sprinkling a child or a baptism of a child the children are already Gods ,they have to reach an accountable age to make a decisison for themselves

Answer 9

Well, I think the most important thing is that we are all in agreement that one should be baptized! However, at what age did Jesus, himself, get baptized? Wasn't this truly, the beginning of His ministry??

Now, as a child, Jesus was taken to the temple as all Jewish, for a blessing. There, Anna( the prophetess) and Simeon (who asked God to allow him to live to see the Messiah) recognized the Christ child as the Messiah!! Why then, did they not baptize Him?

Because, they knew of NO such thing! Only the Baptizer, John, the forerunner of Christ, knew and practiced this! That is why Jesus went to John to be baptized! He was coming into His ministry and His time had come to follow God's will. In as much, Jesus is our example, for baptism! NOT MAN!

Now, when a person is "confirmed" in the Catholic Church, I believe that it is then that they should be baptized, as Jesus was!

So, I would have to say that I like the protestant way of DEDICATING babies to God in the hope that they will always follow HIS ways! As for Baptism...I think Christ gave us a wonderful example to follow! So sad, that man has to twist things which were made so clear and that is all religions!

Answer 10

Dear brother, you are correct according to culture of Christians. During the time of Jesus born vide Luke 2: 21 - "On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.

22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”Exodus 13:2,12),24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”Lev. 12:8

Here, for circumcise and name the baby, they used to bring to CHurch. Nowadays, it is following for naming the child. WHile naming the child, they used to bring offering and give it to church. It is practicsing for name's sake. But the real baptism is as mentioned by you only at the age of maturity. Unfortunately Jesus got the same through John the Baptist at the age of 30.

Luke 2: 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. So, it is a custom to follow some practises before CHrist.

God bless you.

Answer 11

Interesting verses, but I don't believe I need the other references in order to believe that infant baptism is completely valid. I see an entire weight of scriptural evidence that makes a pretzel out of credo Baptist logic.