Baptism/Infant Baptism
There is Nothing in the World Like The
Catholic Church!
(Baptism/Infant Baptism)
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for
themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.
With 40,000 Christian denominations, all with differing opinions on the
interpretation of scripture, does it sound like Paul was correct in this
prophetic utterance to Timothy?
There are many differences between Catholic and Protestant. Who is
correct in their interpretation is always a fair question. Therefore, there are
questions to consider:
·
What is truth and who has been given authority
to define truth must be considered.
·
Did Jesus start a church?
·
Was it the Catholic church, or just a Christian
church?
·
To whom did He give the 'keys to the kingdom?
·
Did He tell His church He would never leave or
forsake her?
·
Did He tell His church the gates of hell will
not prevail against her?
When discussing differences between Catholic and Protestant, what
strategy should be used? According to Protestant belief, scripture alone is
enough. According to Catholic teaching, scripture, tradition and the
magisterium are necessary. Again, who is right is always a fair question.
Some of the things where Catholics and Protestants disagree:
·
The holy sacrifice of the Mass
·
Justification
·
Faith alone v. faith and works
·
Number of books in the bible
·
Mary
·
Infallibility of the pope
·
The sacraments, especially Holy communion and
reconciliation
·
The saints
·
Baptism, especially baby baptism
Each and every denomination has a particular belief regarding baptism.
Some Protestant denominations baptize babies and adults. Some absolutely refuse
to baptize babies. Some say baptism is very important; however, baptism provides
no value for salvation. Some do not baptize anyone. Some will baptize with
immersion only, while others say sprinkling is ok. If you would take the time
to read each denomination's teaching on baptism, you might walk away with these
questions:
·
Is baptism necessary for salvation?
·
Why does the Catholic church baptize babies?
·
If baptism isn't necessary for salvation, why
did Jesus give specific instruction about baptism when he commissioned His
disciples to, “go out and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” (Mt. 28:19)
If we are to find the truth regarding all the differences between
Catholic and Protestant, it is good to consider two quotes, one from Cardinal
Newman, a former Anglican, and the other from St. Augustine, a former agnostic,
his Mother praying for 18 consecutive years before his conversion. Newman said,
“To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant.” Augustine said, “If
Rome has spoken, the matter is closed.”
Given what we have heard from a Baptist congregation regarding the
Catholic church, that it is a false religion and they teach in error,
especially regarding scripture alone and how one is justified before God, it is
fitting to read the following account:
From a former Baptist pastor
A former Baptist Pastor wrote about one of the reasons he converted to
Catholicism.
His subject for this work was baptism. His Baptist view was that
baptism was only symbolic, providing nothing toward salvation. He held that you
were born again by 'accepting Jesus as Lord' and you would do this by reciting
'the sinners prayer.' The Catholic view has always been you are born again at
baptism and claim this teaching has been consistent throughout the 2000 years
of Church teaching.
Here is what he found:
After reading the early church Fathers, he says this:
The Christianity of history was not Protestantism. In fact, if
the kind of
theological system (faith alone and scripture alone) had ever existed
in the
early centuries of Christian history, there is no record of it.
If such a system
of doctrine ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away
as if by
deluge...suddenly, silently and without memorial.
He found all these people known as the early church fathers were, in
fact, the first bishops, theologians, apologists, saints and martyrs. He found
that some of them were actual disciples of the first apostles. He found it
seemed more than reasonable that those closest to the apostles would have a
better handle on what the apostles thought and meant by the things they wrote
than those living 2000 years later, or even 1500 years later as in the case of
Luther, Calvin and Zwingli or any other Protestant reformers.
He found the Catholic teaching on baptism lined up perfectly with
what the early church fathers said on the subject of baptism. Namely, sins
are washed away at baptism and we are born again and given the gift of the Holy
Spirit at baptism. God chose to wash away sin through baptism, which utterly
surprised and terrified him, as his view of baptism (symbolic only) was not
mentioned one time by the early church fathers. It became apparent why the
Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura was adopted, allowing anyone to dismiss
all other writings but the bible.
If you want an image of the Catholic church, think of Naaman the Syrian
being instructed to dip himself in the Jordan River seven times in order to be
cleansed of leprosy. Think of Jesus commanding the man blind from birth to “Go
wash in the pool of Siloam” in order to receive sight. In both cases faith was
to be expressed in an act of obedience...Go and wash!
Protestants do not dismiss baptism, as they view it as a symbolic act
by which a believer in Christ makes a public confession/profession of his or
her faith. It speaks of what God has done in the life of the believer and, as
such, is meaningful. However, according to their professed teaching, baptism
doesn't do anything for salvation.
THIS IS A WILD CONTRAST. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT
THEOLOGY, REGARDING BAPTISM, IS PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT. SOMEONE IS RIGHT and
SOMEONE IS WRONG. THEY BOTH CAN'T BE RIGHT!
Early church fathers on baptism:
The letter of Barnabas, one of the earliest Christian writings,
regarding baptism, “The washing which confers the remission of sins. We descend
into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up bearing fruit in our
heart.”
The Shepherd of Hermas, another of the earliest post-apostolic
writings says, “I have heard sir there is no other repentance except that which
took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our
former sins?” He said to me, “You have heard rightly, for so it is.”
The first great apologist in Christian history, Justin Martyr,
AD 150, said,
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is
true,
they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the
same
manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. They then receive the
washing
with water. For Christ also said unless you be born again, you shall
not enter
into the kingdom of heaven.
Clement of Alexandria, writing in AD 191, said,
When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened we are
adopted
as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. It is a washing by which
we
are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our
sins are
remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of
salvation.
Tertullian, AD 203, said, “Happy is our sacrament of water, in
that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and
admitted into eternal life, in that we are freed from our sins.”
Cyril of Jerusalem said of baptism, “You go down dead in your
sins, you come up made alive in righteousness."
St. Augustine
wrote, “Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins. This is the meaning
of the great sacrament of baptism.”
St. Gregory wrote, “Baptism is God's most beautiful and
magnificent gift. We call gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of
immortality, bath of rebirth.”
After reading virtually every early church father, our former Baptist
pastor admits to be in a panic. He turned to early church historian, J.N.D.
Kelly, who wrote Early Christian Doctrines. He found Mr. Kelly saying this:
From the beginning, Baptism was the universally accepted rite of
admission
into the Church. As regards to its significance, it was always held to
convey
the remissions of sins. It is that washing with living water which
alone can
cleanse penitents and which, being a baptism with the Holy Spirit, is
to be
contrasted with Jewish washing. It is a spiritual rite replacing
circumcision,
the unique doorway to the remission of sins.
J.N.D Kelly was an Anglican Protestant historian (1909-1997).
We learn there are four basic gifts given at baptism: 1) The remission
of sins. 2) Deliverance from death. 3) Regeneration (born again). 4) The gift
of the Holy Spirit.
NOTE: The former Baptist minister went on to say, “If anyone existed in
the early centuries of Christianity who held the 'it's a symbol only' view of
baptism that is held by evangelical Protestantism, there is no record of it.”
He goes on to say, “I've been crawling around in the early church for months.
I've looked under every rock and behind every tree, and for the life of me,
there ain't a Baptist in sight.” He further laments, “How could I have not
known something so basic as the early church's view of baptism? Was I so wedded
to sola scriptura that I was never even curious about the subject?”
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: He continues,
What if I were in a discussion about baptism with Barnabas, Justin
Martyr,
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine? Would I oppose them on
the
basis of my personal interpretation of scripture? Would I insist that
they were
all wrong and that I was right? Would I start my own Baptist church or
my
own denomination?
KEY SCRIPTURE: John 3:3-5, which states you must be born of water and
the spirit, is one of many disagreements between Protestant and Catholic
teaching. The early church fathers all insisted this scripture refers to
baptism. Baptists insist this scripture is about anything but baptism. Baptist
theologians generally dismiss this passage by saying that Jesus is simply
contrasting natural birth with spiritual rebirth, saying we must be born
naturally (of water) and then born again spiritually (born of spirit).
Taking this scripture in John 3 into context, it is interesting 40
verses earlier in John's gospel, we find Jesus being baptized. During Jesus'
baptism, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and remained with Him. We also
find, at the same time, a voice from heaven was heard, “This is my beloved
Son.” In our Lord's baptism the same three ideas are present that we find in
John 3:35. There is water. There is spirit. There is being declared a son of
God (born again).
It is not a coincidence that immediately following His conversation
with Nicodemus, in John 3, Jesus and his disciples went out and baptized. In
other words, John 3:3-5 is bracketed on all sides by stories about baptism. In
light of this, especially considering Jesus' own baptism, where the themes of
water, spirit, and divine son ship appear, is it really possible to consider
Jesus was referring to anything else but baptism when He said that a man must
be born of water and the spirit?
These three elements of water, spirit and new life appear repeatedly
throughout scripture. The very story of creation finds the Spirit of God
hovering over the face of the waters to bring forth life. Hence, we have in the
very first chapter of the bible, water, spirit and new life, mimicking what
baptism will bring.
In the story of Noah, for a second time water covers the face of the
earth, and for a second time, God sends His Spirit to cause the water to recede
and new life to appear (Genesis 8:2). In 1 Peter 3:20, St. Peter likens the
Christian's passing through the waters of baptism to Noah and his family
passing through the waters of the flood...water, Spirit and new life.
In 2 Kings 5, Naaman the Syrian is instructed to dip himself in the Jordan River seven times in order to be cleansed of
leprosy. He complains that Elijah hasn't given him something more impressive to
do, but finally humbles himself to perform this simple act of faith and is
healed. God uses this washing with water as the occasion for a miraculous
cleansing that He performs by His Spirit. In AD 190, St. Irenaeus commented on
this miracle and connected it to baptism:
And Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan. It was not for nothing
that Naaman, suffering with leprosy, was purified upon his being
baptized, but
this served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are
made clean
by the means of the sacred water of baptism. At the invocation of the
Lord, we
are freed from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as
new born
babes, even as the Lord declared: Except a man be born again through
water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God.
Ezekiel speaks of how the New
Covenant will work:
With the theme of water and Spirit bringing forth new life, as it is
woven throughout the old testament, listen to Ezekiel's description of the
promised new covenant:
For I will take you out of the nations. I will gather you from all the
countries
and bring you back into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water
on you and
you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your impurities
and from all
your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you. I
will remove
from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will
put my
Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep
my laws.
(Ezekiel 36:24-27).
NOTE: Catholic teaching is very explicit about how we are to receive
the Spirit! Baptism! Specifically, Catholic teaching says in baptism, sins are
washed away, the Spirit is given, and we are made sons and daughters of God
(born again).
John 9 tells us Jesus sends a man born blind to wash in the pool of
Siloam. After he washes, he comes back able to see. In Acts 2, Peter is
preaching his first sermon and his hearers are cut to the heart and cry out,
“What must we do to inherit eternal life?” Peter then responds, “Repent and be
baptized, every one of you for the remission of your sins, and you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38,39) Does this sound like Peter is
telling his listeners that the remission of sins and the gift of the Spirit are
received at baptism? Of course he is!
In Acts 19, Paul encounters some disciples in Ephesus. He asks them if they received the
Holy Spirit when they believed, and they answer, “No, we have not even heard
that there is a Holy Spirit.” Paul responds with the strangest of questions,
“Then what baptism did you receive?” As if to say, I don't know what someone
told you, but when you are baptized into Christ, you will, without exception
receive the Holy Spirit. In other words, Paul is telling them the Holy Spirit
is connected to baptism, period.
In Acts 22, we read that Ananias tells Saul of Tarsus (Paul), “Rise and
be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on the name of Jesus.” Does it
sound like Ananias believed, like all the early church fathers, that sins are
washed away at baptism? Of course he does.
In Romans 6, Paul says in our baptism that we are buried with Christ
and raised to new life. It's clear from the context something actually happens
at baptism. Baptism frees us from slavery to sin so that we can walk in newness
of life. (Romans 6:4)
In 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul says Christians have been baptized by one
Spirit into one body and all given one spirit to drink.
1 Peter 3:21, Peter refers how Noah and his family were saved through
the waters of the flood. And then he says, “And this water symbolizes
baptism that now saves you. Not the removal of dirt from the body but the
pledge of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus
Christ.” Peter is saying that as Noah and his family were saved through the
waters of the flood, so we are saved through the waters of baptism.
Our Protestant pastor said, “I wonder if I had preached a million
sermons if I would have ever thought to say what Peter said in Acts 2: “Repent
and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In fact, I
have never heard a single evangelical pastor use words like that. We called
people to believe in Christ. We called people to accept Christ as savior.
Nobody that I know of has ever said, repent and be baptized, and you will
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit! Why? Why is it that if I had met
someone who had not received the Holy Spirit, it would never have crossed my
mind to respond; "Hmmm, what baptism did you receive?”
But what about babies being baptized? Why do Catholics baptize babies?
What did the Early Church
Fathers say about babies being baptized?
1. In the middle of the second century, infant baptism is mentioned not
as an innovation, but as a rite instituted by the apostles. Nowhere do we find
it prohibited and everywhere we find it practiced. In the early church, we have
St. Irenaeus providing a very early witness to infant baptism,
commenting on John 3:5, which states “Except a man be born of water and spirit,
he cannot enter the kingdom
of God.” Irenaeus wrote,
“For He [Jesus] came to save all through means of Himself. All, I say, who
through Him are born again to God, infants, children, boys, youths and old
men.” (Against heresies)
2. Origen (ad 185 – 254),
who had traveled to the extents of the Roman Empire,
wrote, “The church received from the apostles the tradition [custom] of giving
baptism even to infants. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets
of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin,
which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.”
3. St. Augustine confirmed the universal teaching of the church when he
wrote, “This [infant baptism] the church always had, always held; this she
received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to
the end” and “Who is so ungodly as to wish to exclude infants from the kingdom
of heaven by forbidding them to be baptized and born again in Christ?”
(Augustine, On Original Sin)
The Catechism says:
“Born
with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need
of the new birth in baptism. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation
is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The church and the parents would be
guilty of denying a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God, if
they did not confer baptism shortly after birth.” (CCC no. 1250)
Infant baptism is a rite by which children who have not yet attained
the age of reason are initiated into the family of God, the church. original
sin, which destroyed the life God placed in the soul of our first parents, Adam
and Eve, has been inherited by all of their descendants. Infant baptism remits
the effects and stain of original sin while sanctifying grace is infused into
the infant’s soul (CCC no. 1250). Note: Even though some Protestants practice infant
baptism, it is rejected by many others. The rite has a biblical foundation and
can be traced back to apostolic times, being first explicitly mentioned in the
second century.
Steve Ray, former Baptist, and now
Catholic apologist notes the following:
To grasp the background and origins of infant baptism we must
understand the original recipients of the new covenant. During the first years,
the members of the church were exclusively Jewish. The Jews practiced infant
circumcision, as mandated to Abraham (Gn 17:12), reaffirmed in the Mosaic Law
(Lv 12:3), and demonstrated by the circumcision of Jesus on his eighth day (Lu
2:21), as Jesus was certainly Jewish. Without circumcision, no male was
allowed to participate in the cultural and religious life of Israel.
The rite of circumcision, as the doorway into the old covenant, was
replaced in the new covenant with the rite of baptism. If this is the case, it
is easily seen that both circumcision and baptism applied to infants, as infant
baptism was now going to take the place of circumcision. Circumcision set
Jews apart from all other people. If there wasn't going to be an alternative to
circumcision, the Jewish people would not have accepted Christianity. St. Paul makes this
correlation: “In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without
hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you
were buried with Him in baptism.” (Co 2:11–12) The Catechism informs us
that “this sign [of circumcision] prefigures that ‘circumcision of Christ’
which is baptism.” (CCC no. 527)
When Peter preached, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, on the
day of Pentecost, he was speaking to a Jewish audience. (Ac 2:5–35) Peter
announced, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children.” (Ac 2:38–39) Again, this
cannot be overemphasized; the Jews would have been dismayed had the new covenant
not included their children, especially since it was promised to them, and the
new covenant was to be an improvement over the old in which their children were
included.
The new testament frequently implies that adults and children were
included in the rite of baptism. For example, when the head of a household
converted and was baptized, his entire household was also baptized with him.(Ac
16:15, 33; 1 Co 1:16) The inference, of course, especially based on Jewish
understanding of the family and covenants, would include the aged, the adults,
the servants, and the infants. If the practice of infant baptism had been
prohibited, it would surely have been explicitly forbidden, thus restraining
the Jews from applying baptism to their infants. Rather, they used baptism in
place of circumcision. But we find no such prohibition in the new testament nor
in the writings of the fathers, a silence that is very profound.
Throughout
Christian history, until recently, very few had opposed infant baptism. The
opposition resides mainly in those of Anabaptist (Conrad Grebel and Felix
Mantz) heritage which originated in the sixteenth century and who were strongly
opposed by reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin, as both early reformers
taught and practiced infant baptism. The Anabaptists’ opposition to the baptism
of infants lies mainly in their belief, unsupported by scripture, and with no
supporting evidence from the practice of the early church. The Anabaptists
stated that one has to be of sufficient age to exercise personal faith in
Christ and make a personal confession at baptism. Nowhere is this taught in
scripture that only adults can receive baptism. To hold this extreme view is to
be outside the continuity of historical Christianity.
The
evidence is overwhelming. It is scary to think interpreting scripture alone can
lead someone so far off course. The irony is all those who subscribe to the
theology of scripture alone all think their interpretation is correct. Yet,
they have no problem saying the Catholic church teaches error and is a false
religion, even calling the one church Jesus Himself started the whore of Babylon. They would do
themselves a favor by conducting a thorough history search, dating all the way
back to the early church fathers. It isn't just 'let the bible speak' but
rather, take a chance, what does the one true church speak.
Why let
the church speak? Because there is nothing in the world like the Catholic
church...history proves it!