Alfred Samji
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
I have this query about Luke 1:8-15 where the angel Gabriel tells Zechariah that John the Baptist will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb. In Acts 2:4 and 9:17 filled with the Holy Ghost denotes Baptism with
the Holy Spirit.
- Can't it be said that John the Baptist was baptized
with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, again pointing
to infant baptism?
In Christ,
Alfred
|
|
{
Does Luke 1:8-15, where Gabriel
is talking to Zechariah about John, point
to Infant Baptism? }
|
|
John replied:
|
Hi, Alfred —
The typical objection to infant baptism is that Peter told the crowd (Acts 2)
to repent and be baptized.
Hence, some fundamentalists claim that since infants can't repent, they
can't be baptized at which point it's acceptable to point out
that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit whilst still in his
mother's womb.
John the Baptist, however, was indeed an exceptional case,
so I wouldn't be so quick to build a doctrinal defense, let alone
say that the exception pointed to, or was a pre-cursor of, the practice.
The Church baptizes infants because it is the covenantal act which initiates
people into the Church by pure grace. The promise made to Abraham was meant
for everyone, and as Peter said to the crowd: It is for you and your family.
John D.
|
Alfred replied:
|
Hi John,
Thanks for the reply.
Another thing I need to be clear on is the genealogy of Christ. It is
said that He is the descendant of David.
- Am I correct in saying His genealogy cannot
be through Joseph because Joseph did not have anything to do with the birth
of Christ except that he was the husband of Mary, the Lord's mother?
Meaning Jesus
was not Joseph's seed; He was born of the Holy Spirit.
In fact, tradition says,
it was Mary's parents who were descendants of David, thus fulfilling the
prophecy of Scripture that Christ is the descendant of David.
The last question, for the time being, is again about infant baptism. St.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that children of believing parents
are:
- not pagan,
- not unholy,
- not unclean, or
- not unacceptable to Him
(God)
and goes on to say,
- they have a place among God's people
- they are holy and are acceptable to God.
- Are these words not enough to point to infant baptism, given below the various
translations on this verse?
Good News Today's English Version
For the unbelieving husband is made acceptable to God by being united to his
wife, and the unbelieving wife is made acceptable to God by being united to
her Christian husband. If this were not so, their children would be like pagan
children; but as it is, they are acceptable to God.
|
Weymouth New Testament
For, in such cases, the unbelieving husband has become—and is—holy through
union with a Christian woman, and the unbelieving wife is holy through union
with a Christian brother. Otherwise your children would be unholy, but in
reality they have a place among God's people.
|
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Actually, the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and an unbelieving
wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise, their children would
be unacceptable [to God], but now they are acceptable to him.
|
Bible in Basic English
For the husband who has not faith is made holy through his Christian wife,
and the wife who is not a Christian is made holy through the brother: if not,
your children would be unholy, but now are they holy.
|
King James Bible
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving
wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now
are they holy.
|
Thanks in Christ,
Alfred
|
John
replied:
|
Alfred,
Thanks again for your questions.
Both the genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1 and Luke 3) are those
of Joseph so from a purely legal matter Jesus is still a descendent of
David. I know of no written genealogy regarding Mary's lineage. Tradition
(small t) says she also descended from David.
In reference to 1 Corinthians 7:14, this text has nothing remotely do with Baptism.
You are trying to squeeze more out of the text than there is. Look at
the context in which Paul is dealing with the question of marriage and
what to do when a non-believing spouse divorces or abandons a believing
spouse. Such cases are treated in canon law with, what is known as, the
Pauline Privilege.
Let's look at the whole context of passage:
10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A
wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart,
let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband
is not to divorce his wife. 12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who
does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce
her. 13 And a woman who has a husband, who does not believe, if he is willing
to live with her, let her not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving
wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean,
but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister
is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or
how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? 17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each
one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.
1 Corinthians 7:10-17
The point Paul is making is that if a believer and non-believer remained
married, the marriage can still be considered a holy union, therefore, the
reference to children (contextually speaking) seems to be talking about
their legitimate status, as opposed to the product of adultery.
The text says nothing about infants. The children could of any age, even
the age of reason.
When dealing with infant baptism, or apologetics in general, it's not
wise to proof text.
Build your argument on the concept of the Covenant.
- In the Old Testament, the sign of the Covenant was circumcision.
- In New
Covenant, it's Baptism.
- In the Old Covenant, both infants and adults were
circumcised, so it is with Baptism.
John DiMascio
|
|
|
