Free will of the infant in infant baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DoubtingKT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DoubtingKT

Guest
Hi all, I have been reflecting about Infant Baptism for some time. Please help me to understand more about infant baptism. I understand that Infant Baptism is seen as a gift of God’s grace to the infant by the faith of the Church.
  1. I am a little confused how we reconcile God’s gift of grace with the free cooperation of the individual (in this case, the infant) in infant baptism?
  2. In my confused state, I wonder if we neglect the free will of the infant/individual in cooperating and freely choosing to baptise?
    Yet, on a contrary, for non-catholics, when they are baptised as adults, their free will to choose baptism is essential for baptism?
    If there is a scenario when an adult with a neurological disease loses the mental capacity to communicate his desire to baptise, despite being exposed to Catholicism in his ill state, can we extend the same principles for Infant Baptism to baptise the adult?
the child who is baptized believes not on its own account, by a personal act, but through others, “through the Church’s faith communicated to it.”

[Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: INSTRUCTION ON INFANT BAPTISM, Paragraph 14]
Click to expand...
 
Actually, it is the one doing the baptizing who is choosing to make a disciple.
The person being baptized is passive, at the mercy of the baptizer who can say, “Sorry, not for you today.”
The most your own free-will can get you is to petition, to ask, if you or your baby might be included in the Kingdom, might be baptized and taught to observe all Jesus’ commanded, taught until you fully know and are confirmed in this Kingdom.
 
I think the question is:. Does infant baptism usurp the free will of the infant?
 
JMMJ said:
I think the question is:. Does infant baptism usurp the free will of the infant?
Click to expand...
No. They have not reached the age of reason. The god parents and parents speak for the child by a promise to raise them in the Faith.

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.”
St. Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition (A.D. ~215)
 
@DoubtingKT

The person exercises their free will by cooperating (or not cooperating) with the baptismal promises associated with baptism. They are baptized in infancy but those baptismal promises endure for a lifetime.

God disseminates his compassion and his graces to mankind in various ways without preconditions or without merit. A mother and father take care of a baby and love a baby while it is vulnerable and unable to reciprocate in an intelligible way. What a human parent does to a baby, God does to a baby even more so through the graces of baptism.
 
Last edited:
We baptize infants because we believe that the necessity of Baptism for salvation outweighs the negation of the infant’s free will.
 
Wow! Thank you everyone for all the speedy replies!

To: John_Martin I see… so the one who baptise chooses, I suppose is God, who is ever loving and merciful, so He would willingly choose to baptise all?

To: JMMJ Thanks for clarifying on the question. I was reflecting on how both free will and infant baptism can exist in harmony. But, I guess your question is equally valid too.

To: irenaeuslyons But, I supposed the infant still has free will, just that the infant may not be able to express himself yet.

@TK421 But, specific to the sacrament of baptism, must the individual receiving the sacrament of baptism, do so freely and willingly? @Jesuslover How about for adults?
 
DoubtingKT said:
@TK421 But, specific to the sacrament of baptism, must the individual receiving the sacrament of baptism, do so freely and willingly?
Click to expand...
As an adult, yes. As an infant, no. Infants are dependent on their parents and receive all sorts of stuff without being able to express consent, such as shelter or food or diapers. Baptism follows the same principle, except it removes Original Sin and it is even more important. As the infant matures and grows into an adolescent and adult, they need to exercise their free will to adhere to the baptismal promises.

The scenario with a neurologically impaired adult is interesting and I don’t have the background knowledge to answer it. I have no doubt it has come up before.
 
Last edited:
@TK421 I see where you are coming from! Insightful thought! In other words, the reason why consent is not needed from the infant because it is assumed that the infant will act in his best interest to protect his own life. In extension to that, the custodian/guardian/parents should act in the best interest of the child.

For food, shelter and diapers, it is inherently vital to one’s survival. And so is baptism, it is essential to the eternal salvation of that individual?

But wouldn’t God’s grace be freely given to all, regardless of whether they are baptised as infants or not?
 
@DoubtingKT

God desires everybody to be saved, so we can logically deduce that He offers extraordinary graces to every soul at the moment of their death in order to make that possible, but the sacrament of baptism is the ordinary means of removing Original Sin and it brings the person into the Church. The Catholic parents also have a moral obligation - on behalf of the infant - to have the infant baptized and raised in the Church.
 
Just like the Israelites were tested the whole time wandering the desert from the baptism of the Red Sea to the entrance into the Holy Land the baptized individual is tested in the wilderness of the world unto death and the final resting place. There is plenty of time for free will for the person who survives childhood. Baptism is just the initial justification and sanctification. Why deny the infant that because he or she is not yet capable of decisions? Once they are capable then they can choose to cooperate with God’s grace or not.
 
Last edited:
I see, agreed! It also serves an a first step for the growth and development of the individual’s faith in Christ.

But, why is it that when it comes to adult, then their free will is necessary for baptism? If we follow the same principles for infant baptism, wouldn’t the faith of the Church suffice?
 
@DoubtingKT

The principle doesn’t apply to an adult because an adult is their own caretaker. An infant is completely dependent on the parents for its physical and spiritual needs. The caretaker of an infant isn’t the infant itself, but the parents of the infant.

The faith of the Church doesn’t suffice for an adult who was baptized as an infant either. If they gravely violate their baptismal promises then they need absolution. People still need to cooperate with God with their free will and that applies to everybody. Humans are rational creatures, not robots.
 
Last edited:
  1. The faith, obedience and desire of the parents explains the efficacy of infant baptism.
Remember the paralytic who was lowered through the roof to our Lord and, seeing the faith of the friends, He healed the paralytic? They were acting in loco parentis, or, if you will, as parents/caretakers of the paralytic.
  1. The child is beneath the age of reason, yet retains the free will to reject baptismal grace. Examples abound. Just bearing a child and raising that child show that the child’s will is not the best, right? Someone who loves that child must decide what is best.
What the child does with that greatest of gifts is a personal decision, made using free will.
 
I see! And I agree with you, the baptised individual may still violate their baptismal promises, be it those baptised as infants or as adults, however, for infants, they can still be baptised whilst freely choosing to cooperate or violate baptismal promises?

But for adults, they cannot be baptised unless they freely choose to cooperate with baptismal promises?
 
I don’t remember the exact requirements for baptism, but if a person is refusing baptism and a bizarre person tries to forcefully baptize them against their will, then the baptism is invalid.

An infant doesn’t consent or refuse. It is passive until it acquires the age of reason. The person then makes a conscious choice to live out their baptism.
 
Agree with you for point 1! How about for non-catholic adults?

For point 2, wouldnt the gift of baptismal grace be already given to all individuals regardless of whether the individual is baptised? (what Zach mentioned as “Justification”)
 
I see… thank you TK421!

I do understand where you are coming from! I am just trying to find consistency in infant baptism and adult baptism…

Because in my ignorance, it sounds more consistently true if we wait until an infant reaches the age of reason before they make a conscious choice for baptism? Which is the similar principle for adult baptism.

Then, I still do agree with you! The Catholic parents must do their best to expose and guide their children, living a life for God regardless of whether the children are baptised. Because, the parents have the duty to act in their children’s best interest, be it for worldly survival needs or transcendent spiritual needs.

As for the salvation of children before baptism, by the faith and hope of the Church in the grace, justice, mercy and love of God, we would hope that the children who are not baptised (because of the lack of reason, be it due to diseases or physiological growth limitations), be saved by God in accordance to His plans, in His time. (Be it by baptism of desire, water, or blood in the olden days when the martyrs sacrificed their lives for God)
 
DoubtingKT said:
Because in my ignorance, it sounds more consistently true if we wait until an infant reaches the age of reason before they make a conscious choice for baptism?
Click to expand...
Please correct me if I’m wrong but this is why Catholics also have confirmation…this confirms their infant baptism and is made after the age of reason is established.

Am I correct?
 
@Pattylt Yes you are right! 🙂

In that case, why can’t adults be baptised regardless of their choice (just like in infants), then later on, they can make the conscious choice for confirmation?

I know this sounds absurd… but I am just pointing it out for discussion so that I can find some consistency in the truth! Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top