Help with defending infant baptism

[bogeydogg]

I’m Protestant and infant baptism is wrong not because they are not worthy, but because they cannot physically do so. You cannot speak for your child and assume they will accept Christ. The day your infant comes to you and asks “mother I want to be baptized in the name of the father, son, and the Holy Spirit” then they may do so. How can a child get baptized in Jesus’ name if they do not even know it yet. Also, circumcision is not the same as baptism. It was not done to accept god. It was done to cleans yourself. Children didn’t need to know what they we doing. You don’t need your child’s permission to bath them. This is unlike baptism, it is done to accept Christ and cannot be forced on anyone. If the baptized child grew up to be an atheist then would they still go to heaven? Jesus said all you need to do is be baptized in his name. Just as an atheist could not be baptized because they don’t believe, a child cannot because they do not yet know Christ.

Baptism is not you accepting Christ

Baptism is Christ accepting you

If you could possible accept Christ then you are doing something in addition to Christ’s sacrifice to warrant your salvation and therefore Christ died for nothing. The very fact that you couch your understanding of baptism in language of wanting it implies the human will must activate and oblige God, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Remember if you could do something then you would have something about which to boast.

No. God accepts us in Baptism and creates in us the new life in the Spirit through Word and Sacrament. It is not volitional and it is not participatory it is a sign placed upon us by the Spirit through the working of the Church.

It is not an expression of the parent’s faith in the child. It is not an expression of the child wanting to be saved. It is a promise made good for the washing of sin and the rebirth in Christ by Word and Sacrament.

Period.

God Bless

 

[Steveabrous]

I’m Protestant and infant baptism is wrong not because they are not worthy, but because they cannot physically do so. You cannot speak for your child and assume they will accept Christ. The day your infant comes to you and asks “mother I want to be baptized in the name of the father, son, and the Holy Spirit” then they may do so. How can a child get baptized in Jesus’ name if they do not even know it yet. Also, circumcision is not the same as baptism. It was not done to accept god. It was done to cleans yourself. Children didn’t need to know what they we doing. You don’t need your child’s permission to bath them. This is unlike baptism, it is done to accept Christ and cannot be forced on anyone. If the baptized child grew up to be an atheist then would they still go to heaven? Jesus said all you need to do is be baptized in his name. Just as an atheist could not be baptized because they don’t believe, a child cannot because they do not yet know Christ.

The protestants misunderstand and think all have to be done at the same time. You must repent, you must be baptised, and you must accept Jesus but not in that order necessarily. I find it odd that the Protestants that object to infant baptism on the grounds that this child is not old enough to make that decision will turn around and baptize 4 year olds. Do you really think they are old enough to make a decision? Or are they doing what they know is expected of them?

 

[pocohombre]

Baptism is not you accepting Christ

Baptism is Christ accepting you

If you could possible accept Christ then you are doing something in addition to Christ’s sacrifice to warrant your salvation and therefore Christ died for nothing. The very fact that you couch your understanding of baptism in language of wanting it implies the human will must activate and oblige God, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Remember if you could do something then you would have something about which to boast.

No. God accepts us in Baptism and creates in us the new life in the Spirit through Word and Sacrament. It is not volitional and it is not participatory it is a sign placed upon us by the Spirit through the working of the Church.

It is not an expression of the parent’s faith in the child. It is not an expression of the child wanting to be saved. It is a promise made good for the washing of sin and the rebirth in Christ by Word and Sacrament.

Period.

God Bless

I guess you can have it both ways, that we can do nothing to be saved, yet we must excercise free will.Somehow your Calvinistic view seems only fitted for the occasion, but I could be wrong with my quick quip.

 

[peace2u2]

Baptism is not you accepting Christ

Baptism is Christ accepting you

If you could possible accept Christ then you are doing something in addition to Christ’s sacrifice to warrant your salvation and therefore Christ died for nothing. The very fact that you couch your understanding of baptism in language of wanting it implies the human will must activate and oblige God, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Remember if you could do something then you would have something about which to boast.

No. God accepts us in Baptism and creates in us the new life in the Spirit through Word and Sacrament. It is not volitional and it is not participatory it is a sign placed upon us by the Spirit through the working of the Church.

It is not an expression of the parent’s faith in the child. It is not an expression of the child wanting to be saved. It is a promise made good for the washing of sin and the rebirth in Christ by Word and Sacrament.

Period.

God Bless

Well said!

Maybe we need to explain what is a Sacrament? before we try and explain Infant Baptism?

A Sacrament is an outward sign that gives inward holiness or grace to a person’s soul. Lord Jesus instituted the Sacraments. Jesus gave us these Sacraments as a way to convey His love. These Sacraments heal, feed and strengthen us. All the Sacraments were foreshadowed in the Old Testament and they are fulfilled in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, they did not actually convey grace but merely symbolized it. For example, since were talking about Infant Baptism, circumcision prefigured Baptism. When Christ came, he did not do away with God’s symbols of His love, but He super-naturalized them.

We have to remember that in an infant, although there is no actual sin, Original Sin still exists and has to be washed away. And, since we are all born without God’s love in our souls because of Original Sin, why wouldn’t we want that washed away from our infants so that God’s love can be poured into this tiny baby’s soul?

I think God is very pleased when we have that type of faith because we are doing what He says, “Do not hinder the little ones, let the children come to me.”

 

[Steveabrous]

I’m Protestant and infant baptism is wrong not because they are not worthy, but because they cannot physically do so. You cannot speak for your child and assume they will accept Christ. .

The denial of infant baptism is not biblical. In other words if you are going to say you get your doctrine from scripture alone and not man then to be honest you can not say for certain that infant baptism is invalid since scripture no where condemns it. In fact there are scripture passages that seem to promote it. If you look at history infant baptism was indeed practiced in the early church.

The day your infant comes to you and asks “mother I want to be baptized in the name of the father, son, and the Holy Spirit” then they may do so.

of course if they are 4 and they say it then it’s ok? You don’t see many 4 year olds walking into the church on their own saying I want to be baptized. They all mysteriously get baptised into the same church as their parents. To say that this situation is the same as adult baptism and not more like infant baptism is being dishonest.

If the baptized child grew up to be an atheist then would they still go to heaven? Jesus said all you need to do is be baptized in his name. Just as an atheist could not be baptized because they don’t believe, a child cannot because they do not yet know Christ

But if a child is 4 and they say they want to be baptized then grow up Atheist they still go to heaven?

Baptism is not a guarantee of salvation.

 

[peace2u2]

The protestants misunderstand and think all have to be done at the same time. You must repent, you must be baptised, and you must accept Jesus but not in that order necessarily. I find it odd that the Protestants that object to infant baptism on the grounds that this child is not old enough to make that decision will turn around and baptize 4 year olds. Do you really think they are old enough to make a decision? Or are they doing what they know is expected of them?

Exactly!

Their doing what is expected of them. Their being taught to pray and to ask Jesus to forgive them. That is all good. But Protestants please don’t undermine something you don’t fully understand.

We are doing the same thing in the Catholic Church, but we just do it differently.

Our relationship with Jesus is a process and develops as we do. What is so wrong with bringing your baby and presenting that child to God?

And besides He loved us before there was time, knew each of us before we were knit in our mother’s womb. I think God celebrates joyously when we have such faith to bring His creation right back to Him.

I Have Always Loved You by Third Day
I don’t know how to explain it
But I know that words will hardly do
Miracles with signs and wonders
Aren’t enough for me to prove to you

Don’t you know that I’ve always loved you
Even before there was time
Though you turn away
I’ll tell you still
Don’t you know that I’ve always loved you
And I always will

Greater love has not a man
Than the one who gives his life to prove
That he would do anything
And that’s what I’m going to do for you

youtube.com/watch?v=7fdu6zRpVa8

 

[Cak7711]

The ability to get baptized is a gift Jesus gave us when he died on the cross. If you look up the definition of a gift, a gift has to be accepted to be considered a gift. You accept Jesus’ gift by getting baptized, it can also be declined. You cannot accept a gift on someone else’s behalf, baptism is not from ups, it’s from Jesus.

 

[ahs]

The ability to get baptized is a gift Jesus gave us when he died on the cross. If you look up the definition of a gift, a gift has to be accepted to be considered a gift. You accept Jesus’ gift by getting baptized, it can also be declined. You cannot accept a gift on someone else’s behalf, baptism is not from ups, it’s from Jesus.

Why not? Faith was professed on behalf of infants by their parents who had them circumcized. Healing (a gift) was given to a child by the profession of faith by his dad in teh NT (the centurian and his ailing son), as well as to a servant, as well as to a paralytic who was healed because of the faith of his friends who lowered him into the house. If Paul was telling us the truth, that baptism is the circumcision without flesh (Collosians), and the old law is but a forshadowing of the new (Heb 10:1), and Christ indeed came not to abolish, but to fulfill, then baptism does indeed fulfill circumcision.

The greatest mystery about Baptism to me is that, up until modern times there was never any question as whether to Baptize infants. The only question that arose was whether they had to wait until 8 days old, or could they be Baptized sooner. The reason for this is that up until modern times, Christians understood the necessity of Baptism as a means by which a person was washed of the stain of Original Sin…the means by which a human became a Christian…a member of God’s Family.

 

[Cak7711]

I’m not saying infant baptism is wrong and they are going to hell for it. I’m just saying I would want my child to choose baptism because Jesus wanted it and they thought it was right, not because I did. Look at John 3:16, how can an infant believe in Christ if they are incapable to believe in anything. As I said before, a child should be baptized when they say that they want to and fully understand what it means. What good is any gift; especially one from Jesus, if we don’t even know what it was for. What good is a birthday gift if you didn’t even know it was your birthday. What makes Jesus’ gift meaningless is when we take his gift without meaning. Why would Jesus die on the cross if all we had to do to be saved was to blindly sprinkle water over our head.

 

[CaptFun]

CaptFun responds in Red

I’m Protestant and infant baptism is wrong not because they are not worthy, but because they cannot physically do so. < By “do so” you likely mean, cannot consent to what is being done. But neither did infants in the OT consent to being marked with the Covenant of circumcision on the eighth day. As for adults being baptised “they cannot physically do so …” themselves because they have not the power. It is a power given to the Church by Christ “Go and baptise the nations …” which would include infant children, toddlers, etc.

The children later make their confirmation and give their assent then.

You cannot speak for your child and assume they will accept Christ. The Church does not assume how anyone will use their free will in the future. It obeys Christ and baptizes. The day your infant comes to you and asks “mother I want to be baptized in the name of the father, son, and the Holy Spirit” then they may do so.

Interesting, in the light of:

Mark 10:13 And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.

• which scripture(s) are you paraphrasing? At any rate Jesus says substantially more on salvation. But IF He did say JUST that … all the more reason to baptize the helpless children into Christ “let them come unto Him” and “forbid them not.”

Baptism was forbidden infants by SOME Protestant groups but it was not that way from the beginning in the Church that Jesus founded.

***From the Catechism of the Catholic Church ***
The Baptism of infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

 

[Cak7711]

What you forgot to mention is how every time a person or household was baptized they believed. They had faith in Christ. First you believe then you are baptized; not the other way around. Being baptized doesn’t make you believe. John 3:16, for god so loved the earth he gave his only begotten son, and if you believe in him you will not die but have everlasting life. How does Jesus know you believe in him? After he said this to the people they were baptized, this shows that you believe and have faith in Jesus. Jesus baptized only after they believed; every single time. Never the other way around. Bing baptized saves you, that is indisputable look at John 3:16 and the surrounding text. It says that if you are baptized and believe in Christ you will have everlasting life, those are the very words from Jesus’ mouth. So tell me, can an infant believe in Christ? Did you believe he was Christ when you were an infant, because it seems I cannot remember anything from when I was an infant. Catholics think all you have to do is sprinkle water over someone’s head and they are saved. If this is so then why did Jesus say otherwise. If this was so then why did Jesus repeat over and over to the rabbi that you must believe and be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven. You cannot be baptized unless you believe, and an infant is incapable of believing. The proof for my argument is the very words that came form Jesus. Your’s on the other hand is the inferring that in a household that was baptized there may have possibly been an infant; does your household have an infant in it, mine doesn’t. Technically speaking, majority of households don’t have infants. Also, I agree with you that you shouldn’t keep children that from Christ. But Child is capable of believing unlike an infant. Knowing Christ is different than believing and getting baptized. Even the devil knows Christ exists. And if you sprinkle water over the devils head they will not be saved. The same goes for an infant, they must believe and have faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[peace2u2]

What you forgot to mention is how every time a person or household was baptized they believed. They had faith in Christ. First you believe then you are baptized; not the other way around. Being baptized doesn’t make you believe. John 3:16, for god so loved the earth he gave his only begotten son, and if you believe in him you will not die but have everlasting life. How does Jesus know you believe in him? After he said this to the people they were baptized, this shows that you believe and have faith in Jesus. Jesus baptized only after they believed; every single time. Never the other way around. Bing baptized saves you, that is indisputable look at John 3:16 and the surrounding text. It says that if you are baptized and believe in Christ you will have everlasting life, those are the very words from Jesus’ mouth. So tell me, can an infant believe in Christ? Did you believe he was Christ when you were an infant, because it seems I cannot remember anything from when I was an infant. Catholics think all you have to do is sprinkle water over someone’s head and they are saved. If this is so then why did Jesus say otherwise. If this was so then why did Jesus repeat over and over to the rabbi that you must believe and be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven. You cannot be baptized unless you believe, and an infant is incapable of believing. The proof for my argument is the very words that came form Jesus. Your’s on the other hand is the inferring that in a household that was baptized there may have possibly been an infant; does your household have an infant in it, mine doesn’t. Technically speaking, majority of households don’t have infants. Also, I agree with you that you shouldn’t keep children that from Christ. But Child is capable of believing unlike an infant. Knowing Christ is different than believing and getting baptized. Even the devil knows Christ exists. And if you sprinkle water over the devils head they will not be saved. The same goes for an infant, they must believe and have faith in Jesus Christ.

So are you implying that an infant because cannot profess faith in Christ when being baptized and understand what is going on that the infant can’t be saved? That is what you are saying. Right?

So if one has to believe and then be baptized, what happens to the Protestant infant who dies as an infant and is not baptized?

Being “dunked” in the Protestant method of Baptism for a child who is 7 is not a guarantee that their going to be saved either! I’m sure there are plenty of Protestant adults who were baptized in one of the Protestant churches that are atheist today. Atheism is not just a Catholic problem.

So if Jesus Himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation, why would you withhold this from anyone? Age is not a requirement, faith is and the parents baptize by proxy until the child can or wants to profess this faith for themselves. Remember God does not force anyone to love Him and He will respect the choice even to be rejected and God does not send anyone to Hell because they were baptized as an infant.

Just for the record, say I wanted to join a Protestant church, your church, would you want to baptize me again?

 

[peace2u2]

Here are 2 very good links to help you understand and grow in your faith:

catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm#

2 link scroll down to “The Necessity of Baptism” #:1257.

Peace.

 

[Cak7711]

I don’t know if an infant would go to hell, that is a different debate. I think they wouldn’t because I think the original sin the bible talks about is the sin we want to commit. I think original sin refers to when Adam and Eve ate the fruit if knowledge of good and evil. By doing so this taught them how to sin. We have to baptized because we have the ability and desire to sin. I think a baby wouldn’t go to hell because they don’t have the mental capacity to sin; just like they don’t have the mental capacity to be baptized. And no I would not want you to be baptized again. I am on my way to converting to being catholic. I am held back though by a few of the catholic views. I think they have customized Jesus’ and peter’s teaches to much. I do think baptism should me by being ducked not sprinkled because the bible says it is to represent the burial and resurrection of Jesus. But because the bible didn’t make this vey clear I think either way should work since the point is the same either way.

 

[Steveabrous]

I’m not saying infant baptism is wrong and they are going to hell for it. I’m just saying I would want my child to choose baptism because Jesus wanted it and they thought it was right, not because I did. Look at John 3:16, how can an infant believe in Christ if they are incapable to believe in anything. As I said before, a child should be baptized when they say that they want to and fully understand what it means. What good is any gift; especially one from Jesus, if we don’t even know what it was for. What good is a birthday gift if you didn’t even know it was your birthday. What makes Jesus’ gift meaningless is when we take his gift without meaning. Why would Jesus die on the cross if all we had to do to be saved was to blindly sprinkle water over our head.

Again, you are equating baptism with the entire conversion experience. Baptism washes away original sin, which can be done at anytime, that doesn’t mean a person doesn’t have to respond to the call of salvation when they get older.
Also, what about children who die without being baptized. Now I believe they would go to heaven anyway, but not everyone does. I’m sure that the high infant mortality rate throughout the history of man kind up until 60 years ago and only in the west has had a big influence on why the tradition of infant baptism started from the get go.

 

[Cak7711]

Again, you are equating baptism with the entire conversion experience. Baptism washes away original sin, which can be done at anytime, that doesn’t mean a person doesn’t have to respond to the call of salvation when they get older.
Also, what about children who die without being baptized. Now I believe they would go to heaven anyway, but not everyone does. I’m sure that the high infant mortality rate throughout the history of man kind up until 60 years ago and only in the west has had a big influence on why the tradition of infant baptism started from the get go.

That is exactly the point. Baptism is the final result of the conversion. First you have to except Christ by believing in him and having faith in him. Then you are baptized, representing the rebirth of your spirit. You cannot be baptized and then accept Christ. That’s like taking something and then asking permission. Actually that’s a bad analogy seeing that you don’t have to ask to be saved. But you still need to accept it before your are baptized. As for what happens to an infant after death; I couldn’t tell you. The bible was not very clear on that. So therefor we are entitled to our opinion, I agree with you that they still go to heaven. But all I know for sure is what Jesus told us. We can’t “interpret” it in ways that benefit us. Jesus was very clear and to the point in John 3:16; believe, get baptized, join him in the kingdom of heaven. It that order as he old us, we can’t change it just to be on the safe side. Jesus wouldn’t send souls who didn’t get the chance to be saved to hell. We just need to do as he said and trust that he will deal with the rest, not try to fix it ourselves.

 

[chimo]

I am wondering what is a good way to defend infant baptism when speaking to a Protestant.

Can someone help me formulate a better response than what I have? Extrabiblical sources are welcome too (I do have a book about early Christian extra-biblical epistles which I have not read yet) but remember what kinds of people I am responding to. I guess historical/archaeological and other epigraphic evidence just isn’t good enough for people who appear narrow-minded.

There is a misunderstanding that comes from Infant Baptisms for some Protestants because they feel must one must have a conscious understanding of who they are receiving before the Sacrament can be administered to them. They even believe one must say yes to every reception of Grace even before the Grace can be sent to them. This is one of the problems Protestants have with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches administering the Sacraments for instance to babies. They will probably be more contentious with the Orthodox because the Orthodox do administer all the Sacraments all at the same time even at the age when the child is an infant. The real issue to them is their misunderstanding on how God administers His Grace. Does God need to require a yes or even an understanding to His Grace before His Grace can be administered. The answer to Catholics and Orthodox is no. Why then is the next question. The answer is simply God is not dependent on our actions when we are younger than we are older. The grace actually confers much better unto children and infants than unto adults or when people come the age of reason. God actually works better on infants and on the young.

He has a most terrible time with adults! If Jesus says let the children come to me He is referring to their incredible gift in receiving of His graces. Children can actually know more than adults! So the best time to give God to anyone is when they are young. When you become older the mind is not fitted to retain the same as when you were a child or an infant. The process of trying to get through to you will be more difficult if you are an adult. Children however have no problem in learning and grasping the truth. They are at that age opened to everything around them. This is why we in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will give the infant and children the Sacraments. They are more opened to keep that Grace and to grow within that Grace than if they were adults. The best reason is of course that children and infants who remain in the Church all of their lives will be better disposed in sharing their experiences of God than an adult would have if this adult is only converted later in life. The problem with later conversions is simply you have wasted your time to be without God therefore you are only limited to the experiences of God only as an adult.

This is why converted adults cannot relate the Gospel to children. It has escaped them when they had the chance when they were children. The Grace of God given to infants and to children can work miracles if these same infants and children stick with it. If they remain in Church all of their lives they will be the ones who will be better to relate the Gospel to children. The converted adult will just have problems relating to these same children.

 

[bogeydogg]

I guess you can have it both ways, that we can do nothing to be saved, yet we must excercise free will.Somehow your Calvinistic view seems only fitted for the occasion, but I could be wrong with my quick quip.

I am in no fashion whatsoever a Calvinist. Calvin was a heretic.

But thanks for the strawman.

PS way to not answer

 

[Steveabrous]

That is exactly the point. Baptism is the final result of the conversion. First you have to except Christ by believing in him and having faith in him. Then you are baptized, representing the rebirth of your spirit. You cannot be baptized and then accept Christ. That’s like taking something and then asking permission. Actually that’s a bad analogy seeing that you don’t have to ask to be saved. But you still need to accept it before your are baptized. As for what happens to an infant after death; I couldn’t tell you. The bible was not very clear on that. So therefor we are entitled to our opinion, I agree with you that they still go to heaven. But all I know for sure is what Jesus told us. We can’t “interpret” it in ways that benefit us. Jesus was very clear and to the point in John 3:16; believe, get baptized, join him in the kingdom of heaven. It that order as he old us, we can’t change it just to be on the safe side. Jesus wouldn’t send souls who didn’t get the chance to be saved to hell. We just need to do as he said and trust that he will deal with the rest, not try to fix it ourselves.

This is the issue. You say it has to be done in the order you give. Repent, ask Jesus into your heart, then it is sealed with baptism. But you only say that because that is what you have been taught in your church. Don’t pretend that the bible says it has to be done in that order it doesn’t say that. Just because it is presented in that order by Jesus and the Apostles when they are talking to adults doesn’t mean the bible says it has to be in that order. Remember Jesus said let the children come to me when people brought
him infants, Peter said the promise is for you and your children, and of course the many examples in the new testament of baptizing entire house holds. If infant baptism is wrong then why is it not condemned in the bible, and why was it the practice of all Christians for 1500 years until the reformation? God waited that long to object?

 

[CaptFun]

What you forgot to mention is how every time a person or household was baptized they believed. They had faith in Christ. First you believe then you are baptized; not the other way around. Being baptized doesn’t make you believe.

***Every time ***is a little broad.

There are quite early non-biblical records of the Church elders dating back to the second century; as they quote scripture (at the time before some of the New Testament writings had been canonized, mass produced, and punctuated including chapters and verses as we now have them) it is impressive. Though it appears their decisions went always toward baptizing the infants rather than not – the fact that they were writing does indicate that in some circles the question had come up.

You might enjoy this. The scholarly analysis, scriptural queries and thoughtful decisions lift one to a higher plane than the initial uncertainties.

catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism

Occasionally in Church history theological disputes have champions of saintly character on both sides before the ruling of a council or a Pope decides the matter officially (or leaves it as an open question for a time). Infant baptism being denied/delayed until later childhood, adolescence or adulthood seems to lack any such spokesperson of note whose thoughts can be examined. And which Protestant Reformer first proposed (or rather enforced) its prohibition? And why is “Protestantism” so divided on the issue rather than unified? On a humorous note aren’t such open-minded Protestants risking that unguided child might choose “Catholic baptism” later? < Arguing that “forcing Protestantism (of whatever flavor)” on one’s child is a bad thing that

• doesn’t please God – if it impeded a child’s “possible freewill rejection of Protestantism”
• which is posited as (almost as?) sacrosanct a value as accepting his/her parents’ faith
• and reckoning Catholicism no worse an option than the “practical atheism of nonbaptism”?

While the Catholic Church baptizes infants, it does require instruction and assent for a person receiving the Holy Eucharist. So in some ways Protestantism has kept or adopted the practice of holy prudence per dispensing some Sacraments. It’s not totally foreign to Catholics, but per Baptism it’s not been what ever was done.

John 3:16, for god so loved the earth he gave his only begotten son, and if you believe in him you will not die but have everlasting life. How does Jesus know you believe in him? After he said this to the people they were baptized, this shows that you believe and have faith in Jesus. Jesus baptized only after they believed; every single time. Never the other way around. Bing baptized saves you, that is indisputable look at John 3:16 and the surrounding text. It says that if you are baptized and believe in Christ you will have everlasting life, those are the very words from Jesus’ mouth. So tell me, can an infant believe in Christ? Did you believe he was Christ when you were an infant, because it seems I cannot remember anything from when I was an infant. Catholics think all you have to do is sprinkle water over someone’s head and they are saved.

Well if a sick baby were baptized and died right THEN, or before one could commit an "actual sin, " yes. Otherwise baptism is just the beginning of the journey, and deadly sins must be avoided or repented of, or “being a Catholic” without saving grace will not save one.

If this is so then why did Jesus say otherwise. If this was so then why did Jesus repeat over and over to the rabbi that you must believe and be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven. You cannot be baptized unless you believe, and an infant is incapable of believing. Separate case. Jesus was speaking to an adult. Adult rules apply there.

catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism < enumerates our differences, some history

Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning.

But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.”

And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act.

But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are we to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them?

A “prudent waiting” per Baptism argument would have more weight had Jesus instead said (indignantly! And contrarily):

"Forbid the little children and do not

let them come to me … " and so saying He refused to embrace, bless or place His hands on them. Further, He rebuked the disciples who had encouraged the people to bring the children to Him. :bigyikes:

Imparting the blessings of faith to infants is not less important than food, citizenship, language or other things that parents provide. But the most important thing of all.