I believe in baptism but baptism alone doesn’t give a person faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. If you never preach the gospel you will have a baptized non-believer.
Infant baptism. Do you accept or reject the practice?
We know from Scripture that babies were baptized. We read in two places specifically where “whole households” were baptized.
Israel in the first century was an agrarian society typical of the time. Historical/economic models have been done about what life in the first century was like, and what the first century Jewish family would have looked like.
Infants would have been included in any household. The multi-generational extended family was the normal family construct in first century Israel.
Therefore, from Scripture alone, we can conclude that infant baptism has been with us from the apostolic period.
But Scripture alone is not enough. For St. Paul says to hold fast to the traditions we have heard from him, either by word of mouth.
The reasons for this are important. Tradition is part of the deposit of faith.
Why?
A secular story to show why this is necessary.
Sally Hemmings was a slave who was the property of Thomas Jefferson.
Sally Hemmings descendants all believed that they were the descended from Thomas Jefferson.
Why?
Because Sally Hemmings said so.
The vast majority of historians rejected the claim, but the descendants of Hemmings stuck to their guns.
Then DNA testing…
Guess what…
Jefferson fathered six of Hemmings children.
Now, even today, despite the historical evidence coupled with the weight of tradition coupled with DNA testing some refuse to admit the truth, and claim Jefferson’s brother did the deed.
Highly improbable.
Those who rejected the long standing tradition of the Hemmings clan simply because it was tradition were wrong.
Now, Catholic Tradition is even more reliable than this, because it is written down. It is from the Fathers of the Church of their various writings etc.
Consider, the Churches that have roots that go back that far (the Catholics and the Orthodox) have always practiced infant baptism. Infant baptism is not only in Scripture therefore, but also Tradition, and Tradition is (even in secular history - see Hemmings) a valid source for truth.
Now, why baptize infants? They after all cannot hear and believe as you point out!
Its because of what Baptism does. Baptism cleanses us of original sin. It brings us into God’s family. You say you believe in this, so I take you at your word. Baptism is not a mere symbol. It is efficacious. It is an efficacious sign of God’s grace.
You agree therefore, that normally speaking, ordinarily speaking, the statement that we must be baptized to be saved is a true one.
When Jesus made that statement “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” There was no Catholic tradition. He was talking to Nicodemus about the difference between a natural birth and a supernatural birth. He wasn’t discussing baptism.
Well, I would be careful here.
You see, Jesus came to earth as part of a divine plan. The trajectory of salvation history is one that begins with one couple, goes on to a tribe, goes on to a nation, and finally goes on to One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Jesus came to earth to die on the Cross for the forgiveness of our sins. He left us a Church, which He Himself founded. We have salvation only through Him, and it is through baptism that we enter HIs family, His Church. Jesus came to found a Church, and the Truth about Jesus and His message is protected and proclaimed by the Church. The Church teaches us of Jesus. You do not want to pit the Church against Christ. Such a thing is impossible!
It is the constant teaching of the Church that the bible reference you give us discusses baptism.
From the context of the story “born of water” means born of a woman.
No it doesn’t. Not even from the context. This is arguably an anachronistic reading. It refers to baptism. This is especially obvious when we read the text through the heart of the Church, or just in continuity with the other Scripture verses that apply to baptism.
“Born of the spirit” means born of God; God’s choice, not man’s. Jesus told Nicodemus it was unpredictable.
Are you proposing a sort of Calvinism here?
Man has free-will and is free to accept or reject the Gospel. But the Gospel is for all people. Many will reject it. Many will scoff. But our Lord commanded his Church to go forth and proclaim the Truth to all peoples, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
All of this is important and germane to the discussion we are having because, baptism is the normal way to enter Christ’s family, the Church.
But, as the Church’s understanding of the deposit of faith has grown (the deposit itself is unchanging) the Church has come to understand that God’s grace cannot be bound by the sacraments. God can save anyone He wants.
But the NORMAL way for salvation is for the believer to grow in holiness through the sacraments. This is all dependent on the sacrament of baptism, which cleanses the soul of original sin and brings us into Christ’s family.
Hence Augustine’s theory of Limbo.
I suppose compared to hell limbo is much better but it was really made up and not really a solid idea so why tell anyone?
Augustine is a father of the Church, and a very important man in the Church’s tradition. While Limbo was never affirmed by the Magesterium, nor taught in any council, it was a tradition (small “t”) in the Church from his time to the present.
It is also a more solid idea than you give it credit for I think.
Peace!
). We need to deal with the Scriptural data we have.