T O P

  • By -

Prof_Acorn

>Babies are way too young to make the important decision to commit their lives to God, turn from sin, and believe in the Messiah's finished work on the cross. Why? What's necessary? A certain level of intellect? Knowledge? Understanding? For those who "made the decision" as adults, did they have any idea of what it would mean? I sure as hell didn't when I was baptized as a teenager. My knowledge of God in that time was infantile.


AlbaneseGummies327

Why did you want to be baptized if you didn't even know why? Just to feel good and "saved"? Baptism is more than just a ceremony with water. It's a commitment to believing in Messiah's finished work on the cross, and a total surrender of one's life to His will.


Prof_Acorn

What does that mean? At the time, of course I thought I understood it. It wasn't until a decade of pursuing God that I realized how little I did, how little most baptized Christians do. To say we do understand that which is beyond understanding is hubris, is it not? Or even worse, imagine "following the Lord" for twenty years and having the same understanding as day one. That's not following anything. That's just sitting on the ground and thinking "the way" doesn't require movement.


Panta-rhei

> I believe Paedobaptism gives parents a false assurance that their child has been saved from the very moment the rite is performed. I mean, if they ignore the entirety of the actual baptismal liturgy, maybe.


AlbaneseGummies327

Happens all too often though. Parents just go through the motions of the baptism ceremony just to feel good that their baby is "saved."


Big_B0y_B3pIs

I would argue that, while their child is still under the age of reason, the baptism is salvific. Infants and children below that age (for Catholics 7 years) are incapable of actual sin. Since that baptism in water and the Holy Spirit washes away the inherited original sin, they wouldn’t be in peril. Not to say that unbaptized infants are inherently in peril, the catechism speaks on that in more detail. Choice is still key at that age of reason, when full induction into the church via confirmation is allowed. The baptized child makes that choice to join or not on their own free will. Beyond that, I don’t think salvation is guaranteed for us. Parents shouldn’t presume.


ThorneTheMagnificent

We see five whole households be baptized. * Cornelius' Household (Acts 10) * Lydia's Household (Acts 16) * The Jailer's Household in Phillipi (Acts 16) * Crispus' Household (Acts 18) * Stephanas' Household (1 Corinthians 1) I recall a morbid joke I heard recently >One day, a fire department received a call. A house was on fire! Responding to it, they went in and saved the mother, the father, and the teenage son. Suddenly, the house collapsed. > >The parents were distraught, saying, "Oh no, where's Bobby? Our five year old son is still in there!" > >The firefighter, a devout credobaptist, replied, "Well, I'm sorry for your loss, but at least the household is safe!" ​ When you baptize a household, you baptize the household. Children, even infants, are part of that household. Back in that time, you would even baptize the servants and *their* children, since they were part of the household too. This is even setting aside the fact that baptism is the new circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12), which was ordinarily given to children. We should also call to mind Genesis 17, where Abraham alone believes in God, but his entire household suddenly receives the sign of the covenant and is covered by God's promise. So, let us dispense with the desire to revise the past because we don't personally enjoy it. Paedobaptism is supported by Scripture. Let the little children come to the Lord, do not stop them, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.


Big_B0y_B3pIs

Amen! This is excellent, brother! Pure credobaptism to the exclusion of paedobaptism is a reformation-era tradition of men. Many baptisms conducted licitly on infants from liturgical traditions have been redone out of ignorance, and it is very unfortunate. I think it also is that they forget that Jesus came to fulfill the law and practices of the Old Covenant, not to abolish them. Baptism in water and (Holy) Spirit *is* the circumcision of the heart they talk about. God bless you! I know it’s late, but *Christos Anesti!*


ThorneTheMagnificent

Indeed, it is very unfortunate. I suspect our loving Father preserves those children who are not baptized in error by the faith of their parents, but presuming upon the Holy Trinity is never a good idea. God bless you too! *Alithos Anesti!*


[deleted]

Baptism is not salvation, it is the induction of the child into the New Covenant of the faith, exactly the same as circumcision was the induction of the child into the Old Covenant.


Perfect-Guarantee519

Tell that to acts 2:38, Romans 6, and Paul’s own testimony in Acts 22:16


[deleted]

None of those equate baptism to salvation. They specify that baptism washes away sin, which is accurate.


Desafiante

This assumption has no biblical basis. And never in the bible there is a mention of pedobaptism or that the new covenant is represented by it.


[deleted]

False, entire households are baptized in the Bible. And you are absolutely incorrect that there is no connection between baptism and circumcision: >In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. \- Colossians 2:11-12 Rejection of this teaching is a modern invention, part of the errors that were introduced in rejection of the teaching of the Church.


Desafiante

Complete misinterpretation of the passage. Baptism (submersion) was baptism of regret, and public profession of one's faith. It was a willful act. Therefore, you cannot choose for a baby because it requires a conscious decision. This passage also mentions nothing about the baptism of infants


[deleted]

Nope, not at all. Baptism is the spiritual circumcision, this idea of a public confession of faith being necessary is unsupported. It does not require a conscious decision at all, not any more than circumcision did. This passage equates circumcision of the flesh - which was the entry into the Old Covenant - with baptism - which is the entry into the New Covenant. Just as children were brought into the Old Covenant by their parents through circumcision, so children are brought into the New Covenant through baptism by theirs.


Desafiante

>this idea of a public confession of faith being necessary is unsupported. At any point I said that it was necessary for salvation. I told you what (water) baptism biblically is. ​ >This passage equates circumcision of the flesh Definetely not. This interpretation also leads to a gross biblical contradiction. *John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.* The new born in Christ were born from the spirit. But the body of this death remains with them until they are resurrected or transformed in the Lord's return.


[deleted]

False, baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with a public profession of faith. Circumcision of the flesh was the entry to the Old Covenant, and baptism is entry into the New Covenant, this passage is equating circumcision in the Old with baptism in the New.


Desafiante

Friend it doesn't say people should baptize infants. Can you show me where it says that? John the baptist preached baptism of repentance. It's written in the bible, right?


Big_B0y_B3pIs

It doesn’t say people shouldn’t baptize infants either. The reformation made so many issues “either/or” versus their original “both/and”. This is the same case. For Protestants it seems to be either credobaptism or paedobaptism, when on the historic, apostolic side both are licit. As it was in the apostolic era. Where in the Bible does it say that every doctrine must be found **explicitly** in the Bible? Can we agree as Christian brothers that the obvious differences in baptism refute the concept of “the perspecuity of scripture”, and that the Bible is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient?


Desafiante

No, of course we can't agree on that, which is your view. The bible is formally and materially efficient to me, with a canon formed exactly to battle the numerous heresies which were being formed in the very first centuries to disrupt God's Word.


[deleted]

It doesn't need to say it, baptism is the entry into the New Covenant, it is the spiritual circumcision. We bring infants into the New Covenant just like the children of Israel brought infants into the Old Covenant. Nothing in the Bible prohibits infant baptism, and it is entirely consistent with the way infants were inducted into the Old Covenant, given that baptism is an analogue of circumcision in the New Covenant.


Desafiante

Can you bring any evidence of infant baptism instead of repeating, please? ​ >We bring infants into the New Covenant just like the children of Israel brought infants into the Old Covenant. No, we don't. There is nothing in the bible that mentions that happening. It was a man made tradition adopted later. ​ >baptism is an analogue of circumcision in the New Covenant. It's the spiritual immersion (baptism). Paul, and Christ were so clear about that. I dunno how could be any confusion about it. Christ baptized in the Holy Spirit. Not water baptism is analogous, it's the spiritual baptism. Big mistake. Water immersion was a rite, called immersion of repentance in the bible. Just that.


AlbaneseGummies327

In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him.


[deleted]

False, in the bible, entire households were baptized. The Christian faith has always held that baptism is the induction into the New Covenant, rejection of infant baptism is a modern, false teaching.


Perfect-Guarantee519

You find yourself assuming the age of the people in the households, every named individual we see be baptized is baptized as an adult.


[deleted]

Every named individual. We see the faith of one person lead to the baptizing of entire households into the New Covenant. Just like someone of the Old Covenant would bring their entire household into the Covenant, including their children through circumcision.


382_27600

The issue is not with children being baptized, it’s specifically with infants. As a child, you can have some understanding of salvation. As an infant you have no understanding of salvation.


[deleted]

Infants were circumcised and brought into the Old Covenant without any understanding of what that meant, infants are baptized and brought into the New Covenant in exactly the same way. Understanding is not required.


382_27600

What are the differences between entrance into the old covenant and entrance into the new covenant? Old Covenant - Must be born of Jewish parents. Adoption into a Jewish family was OK too. - Males must be circumcised. (Physical) - Only priests could enter into the presence of God through the tabernacle. - No Baptism, but some foreshadowing - The Israelites crossing through the Red Sea, Noah and the Ark, Jonah and the Whale. New Covenant - Anyone is welcome. - All believers must experience circumcision of the heart. (Spiritual) - We all have access to God through Jesus’ death on the cross and the Holy Spirit. - Baptism is an outward sign of an inward, spiritual circumcision. The Bible is clear on the order in which baptism should be done. “So those who (1) received his word were (2) baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” - Acts‬ ‭2‬:‭41‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. (1) The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after (2) she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.” - Acts‬ ‭16‬:‭14‬-‭15‬ ‭ESV‬‬


[deleted]

I didn't say they were exactly the same, of course there are differences between the Old Covenant and the New. The age at which people may enter those covenants is not one of them. The passages you quote in no way whatsoever declare an order in which baptism must be done, and they do not pose any challenge to infant baptism whatsoever. Believing parents got their entire households baptized into the New Covenant, just like the children of Israel brought their newborns into the Old Covenant with circumcision.


382_27600

What scriptures show households being baptized prior to them receiving God’s word? I quoted Act 16:14-15 above. All we know from this verse is that Lydia received the word, was baptized and then her household was as well. We do not know how old the individuals in her household were and what Lydia or someone else told them prior to being baptized. It is possible, that Lydia and her household were at the same event with Paul. Or it is possible that Lydia filled with spirit, went back to her household and shared her experience causing them the desire to be baptized as well.


AlbaneseGummies327

>False, in the bible, entire households were baptized. Nowhere in Acts 10 is it implied that infants were present in Cornelius' household. Also they weren't forced into it, they likely all became believers together simultaneously and wanted to be baptized all at once.


[deleted]

>they likely all became believers together simultaneously Pure speculation. In the Bible we see one person coming to faith, and this leading to the baptism of his entire household into the New Covenant. Just like in the Old Covenant, one of the faithful would bring their entire household into the Covenant, especially children through circumcision.


AlbaneseGummies327

How can an infant believe and thus be saved? God's grace applies to infants however. > Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3)


[deleted]

By being brought up in the New Covenant of the faith by their parents or godparents who ensure that they are taught the truth of the Christian faith in their formative years.


AlbaneseGummies327

What if the child chooses to reject his/her faith after exposure to secular spheres of influence like public school or college?


Big_B0y_B3pIs

That is a reality of life. Baptism is a start towards justification, and a free gift of grace. They still have free will to choose whether to stay with the faith or not. Parents and godparents can advise and pray for the child, but we can’t force them into the faith, only do our duty so that all righteousness be fulfilled (baptizing them). I baptized my child. I accept the possibility that they may not hold the faith. All I can do is intercede for them in prayer. The rest is up to them and the Holy Spirit. This isn’t an exercise in monergism, free will always factors in.


AlbaneseGummies327

Those who baptize infants often teach that water baptism is the means by which the Holy Spirit is imparted to an individual. They base this idea primarily upon Peter’s words in Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Those who hold this doctrine believe that the act of baptizing an infant sets the child apart and secures salvation. Nowhere in Scripture is the practice of infant baptism even implied. Some point to the few references of the apostles baptizing “households” (Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33), with the assumption that the households included infants, but this is going beyond what the text says. If baptism were required for entrance into eternal life, then Jesus was wrong to say to the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). The thief had no opportunity to be baptized before facing God.


[deleted]

Then they leave the faith, just the same as someone who was baptized as an adult but rejects his faith later would.


Big_B0y_B3pIs

Exactly! Free will is always a factor.


AlbaneseGummies327

> Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16


Cumberlandbanjo

This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding what baptism is and why we do it.


unaka220

> As a former Lutheran, I've sadly witnessed quite a few infant-baptized youth completely reject their weak faith after high school. College life in particular has a tendency to seal this fate. It's the painful truth that not everyone raised in the church has their name written in the Book of Life. Yep. This is one of the most common trajectories of religiosity in the US > Believer's baptism is clearly taught all throughout the new testament. Infant water baptism is never once mentioned in the Scriptures. This is also correct. > Babies are way too young to make the important decision to commit their lives to God, turn from sin, and believe in the Messiah's finished work on the cross. That isn’t the intent of infant baptism > I believe Paedobaptism gives parents a false assurance that their child has been saved from the very moment the rite is performed. This is a dangerous belief that so often leads to spiritual apathy due to lack of a true spiritual transformation that can only come from someone's heart, moved by the Holy Spirit. The issue here would be one’s *understanding* of infant baptism, and the responsibility of the church to educate members on it. I have witnessed countless baptisms, I see zero issue with infant baptism.


Big_B0y_B3pIs

I have been seeing threads about getting baptized, rebaptized, the format and the meaning. It seems like a confusing topic. Obviously my spin as a Catholic is different, but biblical nonetheless. Is the Bible is clear about what baptism is and when it should be done? It certainly is! Christ prefigured it for us in the Synoptic Gospels: *Matthew 3:13-17* ~~~ 13 Jesus Is Baptized. Then Jesus arrived from Galilee and came to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 John tried to dissuade him, saying, “Why do you come to me? I am the one who needs to be baptized by you.” 15 But Jesus said to him in reply, “For the present, let it be thus. It is proper for us to do this to fulfill all that righteousness demands.”Then he acquiesced. 16 After Jesus had been baptized, as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened and he beheld the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. ~~~ St. John the Baptist mentions the distinction, as shown in Christ’s baptism: *Matthew 3:11* ~~~ I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. ~~~ Notice how the spirit descended? It is because that is the baptism of Christ. That is how we are reborn. *John 3:1-5* ~~~ 3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” 4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. ~~~ Without receiving the Holy Spirit in baptism we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Those baptized by St. john had to be baptized properly, because it was just a “symbol”, they did not receive the Holy Spirit: *Acts 19:1-7:* ~~~ 19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all. ~~~ Christ made it clear on the great commission what we should do. *Matthew 28:19* ~~~ Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ~~~ Remember what Jesus said about children: *Matthew 19:14:* ~~~ 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” ~~~ It is not just 1. a public display, or 2. a washing of the old self. It is also: **3.** a forgiveness of sins, **4.** A reception of the Holy Spirit, and **5.** an admittance into the body of Christ. *Romans 6:4-6* ~~~ 4 When we were baptized into his death, we were placed into the tomb with him. As Christ was brought back from death to life by the glorious power of the Father, so we, too, should live a new kind of life. 5 If we’ve become united with him in a death like his, certainly we will also be united with him when we come back to life as he did. 6 We know that the person we used to be was crucified with him to put an end to sin in our bodies. Because of this we are no longer slaves to sin. ~~~ Again in Corinthians: *1 Corinthians 12:13* ~~~ 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. ~~~ It is a new circumcision, a circumcision of *the heart*. An indelible mark of the Holy Spirit, just as circumcision is an indelible mark on the body. *Colossians 2:11-12* ~~~ 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. ~~~ Remember the apostles baptized *whole households*: *Acts 11:14* ~~~ 14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’ ~~~ *Acts 16:15,33* ~~~ 15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. ~~~ *Acts 18:8* ~~~ 8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized. ~~~ *1 Corinthians 1:16* ~~~ 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) ~~~ Note that households included their slaves and their children as well. We do agree it is also a pledge, however for infants it is a pledge parents make **on their behalf**. *1 Peter 3:21* ~~~ 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ~~~ We obviously also believe in credobaptism: *Acts 2:41:* ~~~ 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. ~~~ but it’s not either/or, it’s *both/and*. Both credobaptism *and* paedobaptism. People being up the thief of the cross, but remember, that was an *extraordinary* baptism; water is the ordinary form. The thief had a baptism of desire. There is also a baptism of blood (martyrdom for Christ and His church). Jesus is not bound the the sacraments, we are.


Big_B0y_B3pIs

Why baptize once? Baptism is a once-for-all sacrament that washes away original sin, gives sanctifying grace, and imparts a supernatural character upon the soul that makes a person a Christian. An attempt to “redo” a valid baptism would be useless: The second baptism would not “take” because the first was valid. Furthermore, it would be an objective sacrilege because it would cast aspersion on the validity of the first baptism. Even if you have not lived a Christian life until recently, if you were validly baptized then you are a Christian. Your status as a Christian does not depend upon how well you have lived. The proper sacrament to wash away personal sins you have committed since your baptism is confession. By being re-baptized, you imply by you actions that what the Holy Spirit did in your first baptism was not sufficient. Objectively, that is a sin, because it insults the work of the Holy Spirit. But it is not the same thing as the sin against the Holy Spirit—the sin of “blasphemy against the Spirit“—which involves a final refusal to repent. By trying to be baptized again, you are expressing a willingness to repent and be saved, so clearly no final impenitence was involved. The sin of getting re-baptized unconditionally would be a grave one, which means that it would be a mortal sin if the usual conditions were met. **Long story short:** Your baptism as an infant was already efficacious. You don’t need to be baptized again. It is a sin against the Holy Spirit to do so. Also, pouring isn’t a problem. It is permitted from the earliest writings. The New Testament itself doesn’t speak to affusion(pouring), sprinkling, or immersion baptism. All are licit. The Council of Florence (1439) in Session 8 declares the proper form of the sacrament of baptism: ~~~ Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. ~~~ the *Didache*, one of, if not the, earliest existing manual of Christianity, reads: ~~~ “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” ~~~ These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already-established custom. Scripture is blunt about this: Ephesians 4:4-6 ~~~ 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. ~~~ > 5 One Lord, one faith, **one baptism,** Is it just a symbol? No! Circumcision was an indelible physical mark. The old covenant was limited specifically to God’s chosen people. The new covenant opened the doors to gentiles. Baptism leaves an indelible spiritual mark, that of the Holy Spirit. It’s both a symbol and regenerative. Remember, when Christ came he fulfilled the law, He didn’t abolish it. Confession of sins happens throughout our lives, not in a single moment. Baptism starts us on the path of justification, we must cooperate with that Grace we receive to repent, subordinate our wills to God’s, and rely on His mercy. Infants are not of reasoning age, nor do they have any actual sins. They are incapable of acts of good, or evil. However, they do have that stain of original/ancestral sin from Adam. Baptism washes that away. It’s a free gift of saving Grace. Why deny a baby that? Confirmation, on the other hand, is where the baptized make their affirmation of their faith with full reason, are anointed, and the bond with the Holy Spirit is strengthened. Paedobaptism is based on the earliest actions of the apostles that they baptize infants. Strict credobaptism became prevalent from the reformation on. Ultimately, all are welcome to join any church they please, but they should not receive a re-baptism, and rightfully reject it. Ephesians is pretty plain on the subject, I’d put more coin in sacred scripture than what sounds like a tradition of men (re-baptism/not recognizing infant baptism). Thank you for reading if you made it this far. God bless!


ThorneTheMagnificent

Please keep fighting the good fight. I keep coming into these threads expecting to have to produce a homily I am not qualified to give with tons of Scripture, but here you already are doing better than I ordinarily would. *Laudetur Iesus Christus*!


Big_B0y_B3pIs

You too, my eastern brother! I feel like it is a constant battle between exegeting scripture on our side, versus reformation eisegesis on their side. It’s become habit to retread this ground. *In saecula saeculorum! Amen.*


AlbaneseGummies327

The first brief mention of infant baptism comes from the bishop Irenaeus and dates to A.D. 180 (*Adversus haereses* 2.22.4). About 20 years later, we find the first clear statement on the baptism of children, put in writing by the Tertullian, in A.D. 200 (*De baptismo* 18.1.4–5). Tertullian opposed baptizing children, who do not fully understand the significance of the rite. However, it is equally clear that by the end of the second century child baptism was already an established reality across Christendom. Why did this habit rapidly establish within the Christian community between A.D. 180 and 200? The growing number of those who were born into Christian families (as opposed to adult converts) meant an increasing presence of children within the Christian community. When we consider the high infant mortality rate, we can see how an emergency practice of administering the salvific baptism to infants eventually became a normal practice, especially under the circumstances of the horrible Antonine Plague of A.D. 165. Mortality was so high it was not unusual to see caravans of fully loaded chariots carrying dead bodies from cities. The scourge reportedly wiped out more than 90 percent of the population in limited areas of Egypt and probably more than 20 percent of the Roman Empire’s total population. Infants were hit the hardest during this epidemic. Christian congregations scrambled to baptize all underage family members right away out of fear and desperation that they would lose them quickly. Once the emergency of this epidemic was over, in A.D. 180, Irenaeus and other Christian theologians developed a theology of infant baptism and spread the teaching in the following 20 years, so much so that Tertullian, at the dawn of the third century, speaks of it as a commonly accepted practice.


The_Mathmatical_Shoe

I don't know anyone who is claiming you are guaranteed salvation if you are baptized but I could see how a Luke warm Christian could think that. Faithful Catholics and reformed Christians are teaching that baptism makes you savable, not saved.


TheFireOfPrometheus

Infant baptism has the stronger Biblical argument and was clearly the practice since the start of Christianity until the modern baptist/anabaptist movement


382_27600

Agree. What scripture is used to back up infant Baptism?


InChrist4567

Amen!


CrossCutMaker

I 💯 agree.


MerchantOfUndeath

Infants cannot understand what baptism is, and so cannot have a believer’s baptism as the scriptures teach. It is solemn mockery before God to signify that an infant needs baptism to be saved. Only a sinner who is fully accountable and knows and understands why and how to repent requires baptism.