Babies cant repent

[truetofaith]

Context:

Acts 2:37-39
“Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children …”
​

Peter was responding to their question, as to what should they do, with the assumption that his hearers had the ability to think.

Some people mistakenly contend that the phrase “Repent and be baptized” and “Believe and be baptized” demonstrate that only those old enough to repent can be baptized. But, consider
2 Thessalonians 3:10,
“If Anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.”

It says **anyone. ** Does that mean that we should starve our babies ? They don’t work. Of course we should not. The verbs “to repent”, “to believe”, and “to work” apply only to the extent that a person is capable of doing so.

Infants when moved by God’s grace can receive His Gift of faith. Consider Luke 1:44, when Mary brought Jesus to St. Elizabeth and St. John the Baptist. Elizabeth replied, “The infant in my womb leaped for joy…” So, we cannot scientifically measure a person’s predisposition to receiving God’s saving Grace.

When a person commits personal sins, he is turning his heart away from God. After committing a personal sin, an adult must repent and, through an act of faith, turn his heart back toward God in order to receive the grace at baptism. In essence, he cannot have a disposition contrary to God’s sacramental grace in order to receive it. For example, a disbelieving heart - one that stands in rejection of Him through personal sin - would be an impediment to a valid baptism.

Luke 18:17
“Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the Kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”

Compare these words to John 3: 3 and John 3: 5. We must enter into God’s Kingdom the same way an infant enters or accepts it. That is, we must enter it without a heart of disbelief that willfully chooses personal sin against the will of God so as to obstruct the reception of His grace.

Someone who is old enough to have sinned personally must make an Act of Faith to turn away from the sin he has chosen and back towards God, thereby opening his heart. An infant, however, does not have any personal sin, so he has no sin for which to repent. Since he has not closed his heart through a willful rejection of God’s will, his heart is already open and capable of receiving God’s saving grace as Luke 18:17 says. He is a fit candidate for the reception of baptism and the saving grace it gives.

Read more at
defendingthebride.com/sc/baptism.html

.

I don’t think Luke 18:17 has anything to do with baptism…Jesus meant we have to trust in Him totally, just like a little child trusts their parent.

 

[JohnR77]

I don’t think Luke 18:17 has anything to do with baptism…Jesus meant we have to trust in Him totally, just like a little child trusts their parent.

The OP asks how to refute the idea that children need to repent before Baptism.
Luke 18:17 suggests that that a child’s heart is not pre-disposed against God. If the young child does not have any personal sins he does not have any personal sins for which to repent.

If a Protestant is going to reject official Church teaching, and God’s revelation through the Catholic Church, then he has no certain and infallible way to prove that Luke 18:17 does not refer to Infant Baptism.

.

 

[JohnR77]

I don’t think Luke 18:17 has anything to do with baptism…Jesus meant we have to trust in Him totally, just like a little child trusts their parent.

Luke 18:17
“Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the Kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”

Jesus is talking about entering into God’s Kingdom. See site below which shows how we enter it by Baptism.

defendingthebride.com/sc/baptism.html

.

 

[Ignatius]

What about Jewish babies, Hindu & Moslem babies who would never receive Baptism even if they lived, and had no chance to know Jesus & accept Him ?

Already answered.

We trust babies who die before Baptism to Loving Mercy of God.
Here’s a Catholic Answers tract on Original Sin: catholic.com/encyclopedia/original-sin

There is no difference between unbaptized babies no matter what their parents faith. We trust all of them to Loving Mercy of God.

 

[Duane1966]

Luke 18:17
“Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the Kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”

Jesus is talking about entering into God’s Kingdom. See site below which shows how we enter it by Baptism.

defendingthebride.com/sc/baptism.html

.

Not only that, but the key use of the words even infants in Luke. Why tell us that they were bringing infants to Christ, if it was not of import?

 

[Cathoholic]

truetofaith. You said:

I don’t think Luke 18:17 has anything to do with baptism…Jesus meant we have to trust in Him totally, just like a little child trusts their parent.

You may be correct concerning the DIRECT quote. But INDIRECTLY this DOES apply to Baptism. Why?

Well to answer that let’s first look at Luke 18:17 with a broader context . . . .

LUKE 18:15-17 " 15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

These “children” are infants or “sucklings”.

Notice a couple of things about the passage.
**
1 Adults CAN hinder infants from coming to Jesus.

2 “To such” belongs the “Kingdom of God”. Infants too (not just adults), have a claim on the “kingdom of God”**

In John 3:3-5 Jesus tells us we need to be “born anew” (“born again” or “born from above”), explicitly said this is being born of “water and the Spirit” and said without being born of water and the Spirit one cannot enter the “Kingdom of God”.

JOHN 3:3-5, 22 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. . . . 22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

OK. Consider the syllogism . . . .

If to “sucklings” BELONGS the “Kingdom of God”, . . . . yet . . . .

. . . . you MUST be born of water AND the Spirit (Baptized) to enter the “Kingdom of God”, . . .

. . . .then it follows that infants CAN be born of water and the Spirit.

Remember that adults CAN HINDER infants from coming to Jesus! And Jesus has a harsh rebuke for those adults who would do so (hinder infants from coming to Him).

---

Baptism is what theologians call “the ordinary means” to receive the grace of salvation/justification.

(There are “extraordinary means” possible too, for people not re-born of water and the Spirit * but it is beyond the scope of my post to delve into extraordinary means of reception of the Holy Spirit here on this post)*

 

[accitenor]

I absolutely agree with the comment that babies have nothing to repent about.
We need to remember that certain protestant sects like to come up with “deep” questions to confuse Catholics - they’ve been doing it for about 5 centuries now! - so I would not be too concerned with explaining something to them. In my personal experience, anyway, most of the times the question comes not out of curiosity or the desire to further knowledge, but to criticize or to plant doubt in your mind.
That is why I am so happy this forum exists where one can learn more.

 

[Ignatius]

I absolutely agree with the comment that babies have nothing to repent about.
We need to remember that certain protestant sects like to come up with “deep” questions to confuse Catholics - they’ve been doing it for about 5 centuries now! - so I would not be too concerned with explaining something to them. In my personal experience, anyway, most of the times the question comes not out of curiosity or the desire to further knowledge, but to criticize or to plant doubt in your mind.
That is why I am so happy this forum exists where one can learn more.

Exactly. There are basically two reasons that questions about The Faith are asked.

1. Out of a sincere interest in the Truth or about The Catholic Faith.
2. As a covert means to criticize or to plant doubt in the mind of Catholics.

When answering, it is very important to understand which perspective the person asking the question is coming from.

Here is a great video by former Protestant Dr. Taylor Marshal on answering questions about The Faith.
youtube.com/watch?v=jf-n51jONg0

 

[Cathoholic]

accitenor.

You said:

babies have nothing to repent about.

Good point!

I should have prefaced my post 26 with that too. I’m glad you (and others) reasserted this fact. I would not want a “lurker” or a casual reader of this thread to think anybody here asserts otherwise.

• In the New Testament we see “Household” Baptisms.
• We are told to “repent and be Baptized” but we are ALSO told . . . the “promise” is for us AND for our “children” (Acts 2:39).
• Jesus tells the Apostles to go make disciples of ALL NATIONS (do we all affirm that there are babies among "ALL nations? I sure hope so). Then Jesus tells HOW to make that disciple. By BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit . . . and teaching them to obey all that He commands us (Matthew 28:19).

 

[accitenor]

Starting from the absolute fact that God does NOT make mistakes, it’s easy to understand that He has ALL hypotheticals covered!
For example: Children of atheists and agnostics - or wayward Christians - dying young are saved by their innocence and by God’s grace and infallible planning. However, enemies of Christians ask such questions to criticize and NOT to acquire knowledge.

 

[JohnR77]

Just to add to the already good comments others have made above.

defendingthebride.com/sc/infants.html

** Why We Baptize Infants**
One of the difficulties of seeing the need for infant Baptism is that we live in the Entitlement Generation. People assume that they deserve all the goods they desire just by being born.

Just a few years ago people with very limited financial resources were knowingly awarded Liar Loans to buy $200,000 - $300,000 homes. The real estate agents, who had nothing to lose and high commissions to gain and collect, assured everyone that prices only go up, and so the collateral was in the bank so to speak. When reality set in it led to the collapse of our economy and this greatly affected the banking and real estate industries. Many people lost their jobs. And many lost their homes through foreclosure.
​

Babies do not deserve heaven just by being conceived. No one does. Even a sinless person does not deserve heaven. We are not entitled to heaven. It is a gift that we can only be made to merit by receiving the grace that Jesus won for us on the cross.

Another reason people often fail to see the need for infant Baptism is because they fail to recognize the reality of ** Original Sin**. There are two kingdoms or two domains.

John 12:31
“Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out”

Writing to Christians John says, “We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one.” 1 John 5:19

     The Rite of Baptism includes an exorcism ritual,          even when babies are baptized.  They are set free from Satan’s dominion          by Baptism.  Because of the immaturity of those in our present culture          who tend to exaggerate the importance of emotional perceptions, this          fact is often downplayed.  This in turn has had an adverse effect on          good catechesis. 

     Baptism saves us from being exiled from God by          moving us spiritually from Satan’s domain into God’s domain, His          Kingdom, that is into His Family, His Church, the Catholic –Universal -          Church He founded on Saint Peter.

     God’s Kingdom is at least partially made present          here on earth in His Church.

Scott Hahn, Ph.D. explains it this way. “The Three Theological Dimensions of the Kingdom of God

         First … Jesus is the Incarnation of God’s              Kingdom … Christ is the pearl and the treasure, which one will give              everything to possess. …

Second … the Kingdom is understood as being present in the heart …

Third … the Kingdom is the Church … the mystical body of Christ … within whom Christ the King dwells …

         ... Kingdom parables of Matt. 13.  The Kingdom              is compared to a field planted with both weeds and wheat …  a net              that catches fish both good and bad … the Kingdom is a present,              although mixed, reality …  
         Jesus says, “unless one is born of water and              the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”  (John 3:5) 

         … the Church in its essence is a heavenly              reality.  The Church in heaven, the Church Triumphant, is the              fullest realization of the Kingdom …             **however, it would be a mistake to deny that              the Church Militant  on earth ] manifests the Kingdom and indeed              truly is part of the Kingdom, even if imperfectly so. **The dogmatic constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium states              the relationship carefully and beautifully:  “To carry out the will              of the Father, Christ inaugurated the kingdom of heaven on earth and              revealed to us the mystery of that kingdom … The Church, or, in              other words, the kingdom of Christ now present in mystery, grows              visibly through the power of God in the world”  (LG § 3).

“The Church … receives the mission to proclaim and to spread among all peoples the kingdom of Christ and of God and to be, on earth, the initial budding forth of that kingdom. While it slowly grows, the Church strains toward the completed kingdom and, with all its strength, hopes and desires to be united in glory with its King (LG §1.5).”
(Catholic Bible Dictionary, Dr. Scott Hahn, Editor, pages 511-512)

 

[JohnR77]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

865 The Church is ultimately one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in her deepest and ultimate identity, because it is in her that “the Kingdom of heaven,” the “Reign of God,” already exists …

         526      To become a              child in  relation to God is the condition for entering the              kingdom.  For this, we must humble ourselves and become little. Even               more: to become “children of God” we must be              “born from above” or “born of God.” ...

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. …

1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion … From then on, it is possible “to be born of water and the Spirit” in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

.

 

[accitenor]

Most posts on this subject are very intelligent and full of theology and Bible quotes.
One subject remains: God’s immutable perfect knowledge and kindness. Any child not baptized would NOT be necessarily NOT SAVED.
In my opinion, since God “knew us before we were born”, he also knew if we were to be sinners or not; so He can reward or punish us based on what we WILL do if we lived.

 

[TK421]

I’m in dialogue with a protestant who’s arguing against baptizing babies and I’ve managed to refute just about everything but she mentioned that baptism is related to repentance according to Acts 2:38. How should I respond to this?

She’s extrapolating without any due cause. The apostles are speaking to an audience of curious adult Jews and Gentiles; of course they’re going to tell them to repent. An adult convert to Judaism had to agree to submit to the Law in addition to being circumcised. Sacred Scripture never tells people to not baptize their infants; people had been circumcising their infants for millennia beforehand, without the babies ability to vocalize an agreement to the covenant they were entering.

Sacraments aren’t something we do; they’re something God does to us. We don’t baptize ourselves. We get baptized. A baptized infant may or may not live the faith they were entered into, but the sacrament is still given and the seal still made. God is faithful regardless of our own faithfulness. We may commit adultery against Him, but he does not become an adulterer in reaction.

Baptism is also administered on the infant because of the infant’s powerlessness to request the removal of her Original Sin. This is done not because it is necessarily morally vital on behalf of the infant, since God does not answer to his own sacraments, but because it is morally vital on behalf of those entrusted to the infant’s care. Once again, to draw a parallel between New Covenant Baptism and circumcision: if a couple did not obey in having their infant circumcised according to the law given to Moses, the sin would fall upon the parents, not the infant.

 

[Maria_Monte]

I actually heard something on EWTN the other day in regard to this. There is a connection between the Old Testament tradition of circumcising babies and the New Testament tradition of baptizing babies. You may want to remind this Protestant person that the babies who were circumcised also could not repent, but were nonetheless grafted into the old tradition.

This is exactly what I was taught. Circumcision, which was done at eight days of age, brought the child into the covenant. Baptism brings the person into the covenant. We are bringing babies into the Church. That is a good thing to do!!

However, every Protestant I have told this to simply tells me “it’s not in the bible,” probably because it is not stated explicitly in one passage.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Maria Monte:

However, every Protestant I have told this to simply tells me “it’s not in the bible,” probably because it is not stated explicitly in one passage.

It appears that the Protestants you mostly know are Evangelicals or Baptists. Main line Protestants believe in infant Baptism. To be honest, I hesitate to call Evangelicals “Protestants” because they are so devoid of ordinary Protestant beliefs that it is actually a disservice to Protestants.

 

[accitenor]

I still think that it’s ridiculous that God - perfect knowledge and perfect justice - would make humans cut off part of their anatomy to fulfill a covenant or a pact.
He only wants us to love Him (and each other) and to follow His laws, not to mutilate ourselves!

 

[abenassi]

The word translated as “repent” in Acts 2:38 is the Greek “metanoia”. which literally means to “change your mind”. Change your mind, that is, meaning turn your will toward Christ. Anyone can accomplish this, even if they haven’t sinned. To tell someone to “repent” is basically a command to turn their mind toward Christ, not (at its essence) only a turning away from sin, especially if there is none.

Babies are born in a natural state of separation from God, without the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and love. Baptism infuses them with these virtues, and that faith will allow them one day to actively turn their mind toward God, especially when they are taught the faith and taught to remember their baptism, making the promises themselves that their parents made for them at their baptism. So in the case of babies, their act of will to repent from their ignorance isn’t carried out immediately but will be in time, especially if the parents keep the promises they made at baptism.

At least, that is how I would explain it to someone who honestly wanted to know.

 

[ericc]

I’m in dialogue with a protestant who’s arguing against baptizing babies and I’ve managed to refute just about everything but she mentioned that baptism is related to repentance according to Acts 2:38. How should I respond to this?

And the following verse 39 say “the promise is to you and to your children” . Ask yourself why are children included if they are not part of the deal.