Help me with Infant Baptism, please.

[reteeks21]

I need some help here. My wife and I are about to have our baby baptized (we are Presbyterians), and we have begun to question why baptism is so significant. While we believe in it from the Presbyterian stand-point, we are struggling with the Catholic and Lutheran view. I want to believe in what the two churches teach, but I cannot seem to find any justification in Scripture proving that it regenerates infants. In my reading I have seen where many think that infants can be baptized because they can have faith, too. How can this be?

Like I said, this is something I find myself WANTING to believe, but I just can’t seem to be convinced yet. Can anyone help? Plus, please leave any Protestant bashing out of this. I am looking for help from anyone here. Thanks.

 

[banjo]

I need some help here. My wife and I are about to have our baby baptized (we are Presbyterians), and we have begun to question why baptism is so significant. While we believe in it from the Presbyterian stand-point, we are struggling with the Catholic and Lutheran view. I want to believe in what the two churches teach, but I cannot seem to find any justification in Scripture proving that it regenerates infants. In my reading I have seen where many think that infants can be baptized because they can have faith, too. How can this be?

Like I said, this is something I find myself WANTING to believe, but I just can’t seem to be convinced yet. Can anyone help? Plus, please leave any Protestant bashing out of this. I am looking for help from anyone here. Thanks.

You acknowledge that you are already aware of the Catholic view regarding infant baptism. Not knowing your source I wonder if you have read the statements on baptism from the Councl of Trent? At any rate, here is a scriptural consideration which you might find helpful.

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so sin spread to all men because all men sinned-sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” Romans 5:12-14

Death is the consequence of sin. Yet sin is not counted where there is no law (i.e., from Adam to Moses). This being the case, why did people in that time period experience death? Sin was not counted. Why did children who had not yet reached the age of reason die if death is the consequence of sin?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Try this on Baptismal regeneration. Know also that this concept may be the most unanimous agreement among all the Church Fathers, except maybe for the Real Presence.

 

[reteeks21]

Try this on Baptismal regeneration. Know also that this concept may be the most unanimous agreement among all the Church Fathers, except maybe for the Real Presence.

Thanks for the link. I read it, and I am really intrigued. I guess my question would be could the term “household” be used for the older people? I mean, would Jesus and the guys have mentioned infants were to be included, or in those days was “household” EVERYONE, even infants? Thanks for the help.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Can you look at it from the point of view that the grace of regeneration is totally unmerited whether one is an adult or an infant and this regeneration comes through baptism. And in Acts we see that whole households were baptized. If a child is to be raised in the family of God it seems to me to be only fitting that he be made part of this family as soon as possible. Only when the parents are unwilling to raise the child as part of God’s family is it necessary to wait until he is able to ask for baptism for himself.

For an adult ‘accepting Christ as your personal savior’ precedes baptism. But the initial grace of conversion is unmerited. And the grace of regeneration through baptism is also unmerited; it’s not merited by the act of accepting Christ. To say that Christian parents should not bring their child to baptism is like the apostles telling the women not to bring their children to Jesus and Jesus rebuked them for that.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thanks for the link. I read it, and I am really intrigued. I guess my question would be could the term “household” be used for the older people?

It could but it would be an unlikely scenario that all instances of households being baptized did not include infants. The early Church certainly baptized infants. Also recall Jesus calling us to bring infants to him.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I need some help here. My wife and I are about to have our baby baptized (we are Presbyterians), and we have begun to question why baptism is so significant. While we believe in it from the Presbyterian stand-point, we are struggling with the Catholic and Lutheran view. I want to believe in what the two churches teach, but I cannot seem to find any justification in Scripture proving that it regenerates infants. In my reading I have seen where many think that infants can be baptized because they can have faith, too. How can this be?

Like I said, this is something I find myself WANTING to believe, but I just can’t seem to be convinced yet. Can anyone help? Plus, please leave any Protestant bashing out of this. I am looking for help from anyone here. Thanks.

Have a gander at these reteeks

wlsessays.net/files/LeyrerBaptism.pdf

wlsessays.net/files/NitzBaptism.pdf

wlsessays.net/files/LockmanBaptism.pdf

May the Lord show you the truth of his wonderful, regenerating sacrament.

 

[reteeks21]

Can you look at it from the point of view that the*** grace of regeneration is totally unmerited whether one is an adult or an infant and this regeneration comes through baptism***. And in Acts we see that whole households were baptized. If a child is to be raised in the family of God it seems to me to be only fitting that he be made part of this family as soon as possible. Only when the parents are unwilling to raise the child as part of God’s family is it necessary to wait until he is able to ask for baptism for himself.

For an adult ‘accepting Christ as your personal savior’ precedes baptism. But the initial grace of conversion is unmerited. And the grace of regeneration through baptism is also unmerited; it’s not merited by the act of accepting Christ. To say that Christian parents should not bring their child to baptism is like the apostles telling the women not to bring their children to Jesus and Jesus rebuked them for that.

I love that statement! I totally agree! I guess the part I am struggling with the most is what if the infant grows up to be a atheist or Buddhist. Does that make his baptism invalid? I know some who say that my last question is their basis for thinking that infant baptism can’t be real since, for some, it would see that it did not “work”. Does that make sense? I really appreciate all of this help. It is really helping me.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I love that statement! I totally agree! I guess the part I am struggling with the most is what if the infant grows up to be a atheist or Buddhist. Does that make his baptism invalid? I know some who say that my last question is their basis for thinking that infant baptism can’t be real since, for some, it would see that it did not “work”. Does that make sense? I really appreciate all of this help. It is really helping me.

It doesn’t make his baptism invalid. The validity of the baptism is not dependent on the one being baptised. However, baptism and faith are intricately connected. If the person falls from the faith they are no longer benefiting from baptismal grace. Rather, they are rejecting that grace of God that was given to them in baptism.

 

[reteeks21]

It doesn’t make his baptism invalid. The validity of the baptism is not dependent on the one being baptised. However, baptism and faith are intricately connected. If the person falls from the faith they are no longer benefiting from baptismal grace. Rather, they are rejecting that grace of God that was given to them in baptism.

So I guess it boils down to this: those of Arminian persuasion think that we must have faith to grasp salvation where as Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians etc believe that God does the grasping, and that is administered through baptism. Is that correct? Are we talking that God’s grace does it all and that we have nothing to do with it, that we can’t even say “yes” without God giving us the ability to do so? Now that sounds like good news.

 

[TriuneUnity]

So I guess it boils down to this: those of Arminian persuasion think that we must have faith to grasp salvation where as Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians etc believe that God does the grasping, and that is administered through baptism. Is that correct? Are we talking that God’s grace does it all and that we have nothing to do with it, that we can’t even say “yes” without God giving us the ability to do so? Now that sounds like good news.

Absolutely!!! You stated it brilliantly, my friend.

 

[bpbasilphx]

** I guess my question would be could the term “household” be used for the older people?**

**“Household” in Graeco-Roman times meant not just those related by blood or marriage (which would include children) but the employees and slaves as well!

And you might want to consider 1 Cor 10–they were ALL “baptized into Moses” by passing through the Red Sea.

Did they leave the little ones to make up their minds for themselves? What would have happened to these had their parents done so.

Notice also–“they ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink”–which sounds to me like justification for infant communion.**

 

[reteeks21]

Absolutely!!! You stated it brilliantly, my friend.

Don’t go too far, now. I am only a high school teacher. For that reason some would say I’m not too bright.

Thanks for the links. I am really enjoying reading them.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Don’t go too far, now. I am only a high school teacher. For that reason some would say I’m not too bright.

Thanks for the links. I am really enjoying reading them.

Good. Hopefully they address that which you are wrestling with. Though the one on Baptist vs. Lutheran beliefs is directed against the baptistic view, it would equally apply to a paedobaptist view that denies regeneration.

 

[Evan]

I guess the part I am struggling with the most is what if the infant grows up to be a atheist or Buddhist. Does that make his baptism invalid? I know some who say that my last question is their basis for thinking that infant baptism can’t be real since, for some, it would see that it did not “work”. Does that make sense? I really appreciate all of this help. It is really helping me.

There are many who are baptized as adults in their 20s yet reject the faith in their 30s. So should baptism be withheld till one’s deathbed to insure that you do not repudiate your faith.

No. CCC paragraph 1253 says

Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: "Faith!"

So the faith comes after the baptism. Baptism aids you in coming to believe.

As for infants, do they ask for food, for clothing, for shelter, for education? Spiritually, do they ask for faith?. They often reject food (green beans) clothing(not in style) shelter(“take your jacket”) but we give it to them and ask them to use what is given. They do not ask for faith, but, as a parent, you must give them what they need to properly mature. So, rather than raise them as athiests and hope they convert as adults, we raise them as christians and hope that, with God’s grace, they remain true to the faith.

 

[reteeks21]

Well, if an infant or an adult is not baptized does that mean that salvation has not been “given” to them? Is it the absence or rejection of baptism that is the problem?

And please help me with this one: it’s not the water that does the saving, but the words behind the water that does it. Is that correct?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, if an infant or an adult is not baptized does that mean that salvation has not been “given” to them?

If they believe prior to baptism generally faith has been given to them by the preaching of the Word (which is also a means of grace). They submit to baptism as Christ’s command and are grafted into the visible church.

Is it the absence or rejection of baptism that is the problem?

If a person refuses or rejects baptism, they are rejecting the promises given in baptism and are rejecting Christ who commanded it. In such a case, I can’t say a person like this possesses faith at all.

And please help me with this one: it’s not the water that does the saving, but the words behind the water that does it. Is that correct?

The water is a visible picture of the gospel. The Spirit working through the word in Baptism does the regenerating.

 

[TheGreenO]

Just a little side note, The mark of the Old Covenant was circumcision. The mark of the New Covenant is now Baptism, so why when you are preaching the gospel, calling for repentance and renewal only invite adults when the majority of those hearing would have been accustomed to entering their children into the covenant, especially the male child eight days after birth, by circumcision not want to enter their children into the New Covenant by Baptism. Peter in his first sermon is speaking to the Jews, when they ask what they should do, he tells them to repent and be baptized. Direct Scripture quotes are going to be lacking because in the time of writing it was a given. The Jews, now new Christians, wouldn’t have questioned whether or not their children should be baptized. It would seem to them and for future generations the right thing to do.

Through Baptism we receive the Holy Spirit and are welcomed into the family of God. We are covenanted into this relationship. God is ours, and we are His. Whether or not we accept or reject it later in life is our own choice. The heavenly Father allows His children to do what they want, and if they are wayward and return then He rejoices and accepts them lovingly back into the family.