A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.

[LionHeart777]

May I ask a question?

What does anyone think happens to a 2 week old baby that dies before being baptized?

Please…limbo is not necessarily an answer. The CC has NEVER taught that limbo of the infants is doctrinal. But merely theological musings. The apologists here at CAF have answered this question before and have stated such. Pope JPII also held out the hope that they would see heaven.

Rocky

I personally believe the baby will be saved. Unless I’m totall misinformed as to what the alternative would be. It seems to me that such a one would be “invincably ignorant.” :twocents:

 

[RockyRoad]

I personally believe the baby will be saved. Unless I’m totall misinformed as to what the alternative would be. It seems to me that such a one would be “invincably ignorant.” :twocents:

We are in total agreement. While I believe in infant baptism…I also believe that Jesus has invincible love for the infants. If the CCC holds on to the possibility of non-Christians through invincible ignorance…how can the same not be especially true for those that are born to Christian parents who intend to bring up the child in the faith of Christ?

 

[Dokimas]

So now you say that Christ may have been a LIAR when he said the holy spirit would guide his church in TOTAL truth???

Matthew

No comment needed.

 

[rev_kevin]

rev kevin, first you (a Catholic convert to Protestantism), should understand that I (a convert to Catholicism with a former self-described “Baptityrrean” Theology), don’t function by Sola Scriptura.

I would argue, infant Baptism was passed down to the Church the Apostles. Undeniably the Early Church baptised infants.

My evidence:

(a) The ECF’s who support the idea and seem to have practised it

(b) the apparent absence of any opposition to the writers cited by Elvis Man

(c) the fact that Origen specifically said so:

“‘The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit’ (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).”

(catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp) (accessed 4/ 5/ 10)

What I posted in post 235, explains, although maybe in part, why I reject the Baptist view of baptism (which I formerly held.)

The Bible NT was written by some of the apostiles. Why did they not mention infant baptism if thats what they intended to be done? They mention baptism but not infant, why?

 

[rev_kevin]

Thomas needed to put his fingers into Christ’s wounds, does that mean He wasn’t crucified until Thomas had proof?

No Thomas wanted to make sure for himself that it was really Christ. He heard he has risen but being doubting Thomas he wanted to see for himself.

 

[elvisman]

You did it for us; why should we do it again? Can we do it better than you? I doubt it.

Actually, I didn’t.
I want a response to what they believed in, taught and practiced as far as Infant Baptism.

 

[elvisman]

Don’t answer a question with a question. Now I answered your Prostestant question which is the same one you posted, now answer my question.
Acts 2:41 “Those who BELIEVED what Peter said were baptized adn added to the church about three thousand in all.” Now if you look at the word BELIEVE it would stand to reason that it is a person of the “age of reason,” a infant don’t have the ability to believe.

I answered a ludicrous question with an equally ludicrous question because it is IMPLIED that people of ALL ages were being baptized.

You haven’t answered ANYTHING.

**I asked for somebody to give me a comprehensive response to what the ECFs taught about Infant Baptism. **All you’ve done is re-post some of the quotes I gave.
Why do YOU think about what they taught and practiced about Infant Baptism?

 

[Loboto-Me]

No Thomas wanted to make sure for himself that it was really Christ. He heard he has risen but being doubting Thomas he wanted to see for himself.

So ok then, does that mean Christ wasn’t Christ until Thomas checked him out? The point is just because something needed proof doesn’t mean it wasn’t truth before the proof.

 

[RockyRoad]

**I answered a ludicrous **question with an equally ludicrous question because it is IMPLIED that people of ALL ages were being baptized.

You haven’t answered ANYTHING.

I asked for somebody to give me a comprehensive response to what the ECFs taught about Infant Baptism. All you’ve done is re-post some of the quotes I gave.
Why do YOU think about what they taught and practiced about Infant Baptism?

Any chance getting you to answer mine? I don’t think it’s ludicrous.

 

[Loboto-Me]

The Bible NT was written by some of the apostiles. Why did they not mention infant baptism if thats what they intended to be done? They mention baptism but not infant, why?

Read post 269 it will tell you why it wasn’t mentioned in the bible.

 

[elvisman]

The Bible NT was written by some of the apostiles. Why did they not mention infant baptism if thats what they intended to be done? They mention baptism but not infant, why?

NONE of the writers of the NT mention the Holy Spirit as being a person - not ONE.
The three persons of the Holy Trinity is a CORE Christian belief. WHY no mention of it.

Because not EVERY truth is found in the written word. This is yet another shining example of the failure of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

**Paul says that we must follow the TRADITIONS they taught - whether by written word or by ORAL statement (2 Thess. 2:15). **

**It is abundantly clear by the writings of the ECFs that they were taught Infant Baptism by the Apostles. It is equally clear that since NOBODY has been able to take on my challenge about the ECFs that NOBODY can contest it.

 

[elvisman]

Thank you for you dilligent work. Now we know what they believed (if the record is accurate). So, if my understanding is correct, they they misunderstood and visa versa.

So - your official answer is that the ECFs were wrong about Infant Baptism?

 

[elvisman]

Any chance getting you to answer mine? I don’t think it’s ludicrous.

I’d be happy to but I don’t know what it is. Ask it again.
Any chance of answering mine?**

 

[RockyRoad]

**I’d be happy to but I don’t know what it is. Ask it again.
Any chance of answering mine?

Since your so concentrated on responding to Dokimos…I’ll post it again.

**May I ask a question?

What does anyone think happens to a 2 week old baby that dies before being baptized?

Please…limbo is not necessarily an answer. The CC has NEVER taught that limbo of the infants is doctrinal. But merely theological musings. The apologists here at CAF have answered this question before and have stated such. Pope JPII also held out the hope that they would see heaven.

Rocky **

I also said that I agree with infant baptism…but am interested in the answer to my question.

 

[PeaceSerenity]

NONE of the writers of the NT mention the Holy Spirit as being a person

As much as I agree with your position. That’s actually not true. The Holy Spirit is refered to as “He” which implies personhood. What were they supposed to say? “And the Holy Spirit, who by the way is a person and a part of the Trinity in case you didn’t know that, descended…”

 

[Loboto-Me]

Since your so concentrated on responding to Dokimos…I’ll post it again.

May I ask a question?

What does anyone think happens to a 2 week old baby that dies before being baptized?

Please…limbo is not necessarily an answer. The CC has NEVER taught that limbo of the infants is doctrinal. But merely theological musings. The apologists here at CAF have answered this question before and have stated such. Pope JPII also held out the hope that they would see heaven.

**Rocky **

I also said that I agree with infant baptism…but am interested in the answer to my question.

Your question was answered by 2 different people already… somewhere up there

 

[elvisman]

As much as I agree with your position. That’s actually not true. The Holy Spirit is refered to as “He” which implies personhood. What were they supposed to say? “And the Holy Spirit, who by the way is a person and a part of the Trinity in case you didn’t know that, descended…”

"He" can refer to a dog or a mouse as well.
**The Doctrine of the Trinity states that there are 3 distinct persons in the Godhead. **
This was declared by the Church - not by Scripture.

 

[rev_kevin]

**If it is not taught in the Scritpute, or speciffically addressed then where did the CC get the idea about infant baptism? **

And where does Scripture explicitly state baptism is for adults ONLY who make an intelligent decision to accept Jesus? Where do Baptists get that novel belief?

Repent and be baptized, A infant can’t repent.

Acts 2:41 “Those who believe what Peter said were baptized and added to the church.”
Mark 16:16 “Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved.”
A infant can’t make the decission to believe.

Acts 2:38 “Each of you must trun from your sins and turn to God and be baptized…”
Matthew 3:11 “I baptize with water those who turn from sin and turn to God.”
Luke 3:3 "Then John went from place to place on both sides of the Jordan River, preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.
A infant can’t make the decission to turn from sin.

.

BTW:Where does Scripture teach Christ gave mere men the authority to create 39,000 different non-Catholic churches?

 

[SyCarl]

I quite agree with this. Except that baptism DOES erase the stain of original sin which all are born with. What takes place at a baby’s baptism is the erasing of original sin and reception of the Holy Spirit which will work in the child’s life should he allow it to. Like the Jews, Christians must instruct their children into the faith… the faith doesn’t automatically get an “on” switch at baptism, much like the jewish circumcision didn’t turn an “on” switch for them.

Baptism also leaves an indelible mark on ones soul as children of God/Christ. He set that system up as children of the new covenant like His Father set the first covenant system up of circumcision at 8 days old.

I know that is the Catholic Church’s position but the concessions that have been made in reality would argue otherwise.

In the Bible we are given examples of people believing and then being baptized immediately afterward. As time passed a baptism was delayed while a person was catechized, something that could take a period of years. This leads to a question of what happens to a catechumen who dies before the sacrament takes place. The solution was the concept of baptism of desire. What is the basis of such a doctrine except that the catechumen’s faith takes the place of the sacrament? That is what gives him the desire for baptism.

However, recognizing that such desire can result in salvation would mean that Jesus must have been speaking of something other than the act of the sacrament when He said “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” because it is recognized that someone can be saved without the actual water of physical baptism.

Similarly, what is the situation if an unbelieving adult is baptized? Is such a person saved when he is baptized or does the cleansing only occur once he does come to believe? In such a situation, is it the sacrament that actually cleanses the person or his faith?

The Catholic Church also trusts that through God’s mercy unbaptized infants will be saved. That to me again implies that the actual sacrament is not required.

I note that Thomas Aquinas wrote of a baptism of repentance.

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written: “If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.” Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism.

Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 66, Article 11
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q66_A11.html

Elsewhere he refers to this as baptism of desire, but he seems to give a wider scope to it than the present Catechism does which limits it to catechumens. He also refers to this as Baptism of the Spirit, which Scripture tells us we receive from Jesus.

However none of this means that baptism is not necessary in the sense that someone who truly believes would want to fulfill Christ’s command and be baptized.

 

[elvisman]

Since your so concentrated on responding to Dokimos…I’ll post it again.

May I ask a question?

What does anyone think happens to a 2 week old baby that dies before being baptized?

Please…limbo is not necessarily an answer. The CC has NEVER taught that limbo of the infants is doctrinal. But merely theological musings. The apologists here at CAF have answered this question before and have stated such. Pope JPII also held out the hope that they would see heaven.

**Rocky **

I also said that I agree with infant baptism…but am interested in the answer to my question.

We leave unbaptized children to the mercy of God.
That is what the Church teaches.
CCC 1283: "With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation."

As for Limbo - it was never a doctrine, but neither was it a mere “theological musing”. It was a way of understanding the matter.