THE PROOF FOR INFANT BAPTISM Many Protestants do not believe that - TopicsExpress



          

THE PROOF FOR INFANT BAPTISM Many Protestants do not believe that infants should be baptized. They think baptism should only be given to those who have reached the age of reason and have chosen to receive it. They consider the baptisms of infants to be invalid and unscriptural. This position is false for many reasons. It should be pointed out, first of all, that most Protestants agree with Catholics on this point. Most of them practice infant baptism. Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and others practice infant baptism. This is obviously not to suggest that because these groups practice infant baptism that proves the truth of the practice; but merely to note that Protestants who reject infant baptism are in the minority, even among Protestants. Second, the Bible teaches that whole households were baptized: 1 Cor. 1:16- “And I [Paul] baptized also the household of Stephanas...” Acts 16:15- “And when she [Lydia] was baptized, and her household... Acts 16:33- “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” Entire households were baptized. Think about these verses. The Bible refers to a woman and “her household.” It refers to a man and his “household.” Why didn’t the passage just say a woman and “her husband”? Why didn’t it say a man and “his wife”? Households generally include children. Scripture connects the two: Gen. 18:19- “… he will command his children and his household after him…” Gen. 36:6- “And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house.” Since households generally include children – and the Bible repeatedly mentions that whole households were baptized – these passages by themselves make the case against infant baptism extremely unlikely. In fact, if a Protestant who rejects infant baptism believes in Scripture alone, he would have to find an explicit teaching in the Bible that infants should not be baptized. But there is nothing like that. Third, Jesus clearly taught that every man must be baptized to be saved. We saw this in John 3:5. He does not make any distinctions or exceptions. This is very significant because in John 6:53 – a passage on the necessity to eat Jesus’ flesh, which uses language that is similar to John 3:5 – we do see a distinction. In John 6:53, Jesus says: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” But in John 3:5, he says: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” In John 6:53 (John 6:54 in Catholic versions), Jesus says unless YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man. But in John 3:5, the statement is universally applicable: unless A MAN is born again of water and the Spirit. The wording is slightly different because receiving the Eucharist is necessary for all who hear the command and can fulfill it, such as those above the age of reason. Jesus said unless you, to those to whom He was speaking and to others who hear the command. But the necessity to receive water baptism is universal. Hence, Jesus says unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Every man necessarily includes infants. It logically follows from the teaching of Jesus in John 3:5 that infants should be baptized. THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT BAPTISM IS THE NEW CIRCUMCISION – INFANTS WERE CIRCUMCISED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Moving to the next point, which is extremely important, we must consider circumcision. Circumcision was the Old Testament counterpart to Baptism. Circumcision was the way that males in the Old Testament entered a covenant relationship with God. If you were not circumcised, you were not in God’s covenant. It was a type of baptism. Like other types, not every aspect of circumcision corresponded to what baptism would be. For instance, only males could be circumcised in the Old Testament, but males and females are baptized in the New. But there is no doubt that circumcision was the Old Testament counterpart to baptism. Colossians 2 teaches that baptism is the New Testament circumcision. Colossians 2:11-12- “In [Jesus] also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith...” This passage identifies baptism as the new and greater circumcision. It also says that one rises to new supernatural life in Christ by baptism. Infants were circumcised in the Old Testament. If baptism is the new circumcision, it follows that infants are to be baptized in the New. If not, then God would have been more generous, more universal, more inclusive in the inferior Old Covenant than He is in the New. But this is not the case. The salvation which is made available in Jesus is open to all peoples: to Jews and Gentiles. It’s unthinkable that Jesus would not establish a means to incorporate children into His spiritual Kingdom and to give them His blessings and salvation. In fact, notice what Peter says in his famous sermon on Pentecost in Acts 2: Acts 2:38-39- “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. For the promise is unto you, and to your children...” This passage is speaking of baptism, and the blessings and forgiveness given through it. It says that the promise is also for the children. They receive the forgiveness through water baptism. Matthew 19:13-15- “Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.” Like · Sunday at 5:19pm Jude Enemuo THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH BELIEVED IN INFANT BAPTISM The fathers of the Christian Church also believed in infant baptism, having received this tradition from Jesus and the Apostles. Here are just three passages; others could be quoted. Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 8:3, 244-248 A.D.- “In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous. Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.- “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.) St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415 A.D.- “Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1439) Like · Sunday at 5:20pm Jude Enemuo BAPTISM DOESN’T HAVE TO BE BY IMMERSION Some non-Catholics believe baptism must be done by immersion. This is not taught in the Bible. Consider the fact that on Pentecost, in Acts chapter 2, when thousands were baptized, there wasn’t a sufficient water supply to baptize them all by immersion. Baptism by effusion (pouring) or sprinkling must have been used. In addition, baptism by immersion would be very difficult or impossible in extremely cold environments such as the Arctic, and in extremely hot environments such as deserts. In other situations – such as an apostolate to prisoners (e.g., Acts 16) – where freedom of movement is limited, baptizing by immersion wouldn’t be practicable. Jesus never would have made it so difficult or impossible to administer baptism in these situations when He was the one who declared that every man must have it. Some people also say that the word baptism in Greek exclusively means immersion. This is not true. The word is used to signify immersion, but it is also used to signify washings which are not immersions. Examples where baptism means washing, but not immersion, are found in Luke 11:38 and Hebrews 9:10. Baptism is valid if performed either by immersion, effusion (i.e., pouring) or sprinkling, but the water must be moving as it strikes the skin and the proper words (“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” or their equivalent) must be said. Another point is that in baptism, the Holy Spirit is poured out. That means that even though baptism by immersion is certainly valid if done properly, one could say that baptism by effusion (i.e., pouring) more precisely signifies the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism. There is also the fact that paintings in the catacombs, which were made by the earliest Christians, depict baptisms by pouring. This shows that these baptisms by pouring were considered acceptable from the beginning. The Didache was written around A.D. 70. It’s a famous document from the early Church. It’s a strong witness to the beliefs and practices of the ancient Christians. In chapter 7, The Didache approves of baptism by immersion in a river, but also baptism by effusion or pouring. The Didache, 70 A.D.- “And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” This was written while some of the Apostles might have been living or in the first generation after them. All of this shows that the Catholic Church’s teaching on baptism is the true teaching of the Bible. This is because the Catholic Church is the one true Church
Posted on: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:27:06 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015