If life begins at conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowHereThis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NowHereThis

Guest
and baptism is necessary for salvation, why does the church wait until after birth to baptize?

I read the “Ask an Apologist” answer on this which was “we just trust God that fetuses that die will make it to heaven without baptism”, but that seems pretty blithe when you can just move baptism back to as close to conception as possible. Otherwise, either the belief that baptism is necessary or the belief that life begins at conception seems shaky. Why not just trust God that sins will be forgiven without baptism, for example?
 
We are born into original sin, with baptism we are freed from sin and reborn into Christ.

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

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm
 
Baptism requires pouring water over the head. We cannot do that when a child is still in the womb. We also do not baptize the dead, and most children delivered far before their due date have passed away.
 
How can you baptize an unborn baby? It’s physically impossible. Plus, baptism is a rebirth… which would imply you must first be born before you can be re-born, correct?

I don’t see how the timing that one is baptized has anything to do with the fact that life begins at conception. Maybe I’m missing something here.
 
Technically the child is already in water, so perhaps the priest could just bless the waters of the womb, much as the spirit of God once hovered over the waters of the deep in Genesis.
 
NowHereThis said:
Technically the child is already in water, so perhaps the priest could just bless the waters of the womb, much as the spirit of God once hovered over the waters of the deep in Genesis.
Click to expand...
Amnio fluid is NOT water, despite being clear.
 
If life begins at conception
Click to expand...
It does.
and baptism is necessary for salvation,
Click to expand...
It is. But that’s not as straight forward as it sounds. For example, see the doctrine on Baptism of desire.
why does the church wait until after birth to baptize?
Click to expand...
Because it would be kind of hard to baptize in the womb. What do you want, a caesarian?
I read the “Ask an Apologist” answer on this which was “we just trust God that fetuses that die will make it to heaven without baptism”, but that seems pretty blithe when you can just move baptism back to as close to conception as possible.
Click to expand...
Hm? Who says we can just move baptism back to conception?
  1. Baptism isn’t meant to represent conception. It is meant to represent spiritual birth.
  2. This was Jesus’ intent and the Church does not have the authority to rescind or undo His intentions.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Note that the Church is authorized to Teach all that He commanded. Nothing else.
Otherwise, either the belief that baptism is necessary or the belief that life begins at conception seems shaky.
Click to expand...
Both are true. We believe both. You are not required to agree with the Teaching. Only to submit to it and obey.
Why not just trust God that sins will be forgiven without baptism, for example?
Click to expand...
Because that is not trust. That is disobedience. God revealed that Baptism is necessary and that life begins at conception. He also reveals that He requires obedience from all believers. Therefore, we believe and obey.

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
 
Actually, it does seem to be from what I’ve read, at least in the beginning. It’s only later that urine from the fetus begins to build up. You have a source that says differently?
 
Children born prematurely are to be baptized as soon as possible. However, one is not expect to perform partial C-Section and baptize a child still in utero. That would be far to close to despairing for the child’s salvation. We can only trust God’s mercy before birth.

Poring water over the mother’s abdomen would not be a valid baptism. The water must reasonably touch the child.
 
Just bless the water in the womb earlier enough that it is indeed water and not other fluids, as I suggested to another poster.
 
So it would indeed be possible to validly baptize by blessing the amnio fluid before it changed, correct?
 
NowHereThis said:
Just bless the water in the womb earlier enough that it is indeed water and not other fluids, as I suggested to another poster.
Click to expand...
It still can’t be poured…and one still cannot make the form of a cross on the forehead, all vital to baptism
 
NowHereThis said:
So it would indeed be possible to validly baptize by blessing the amnio fluid before it changed, correct?
Click to expand...
No. The water must be poured. Plus, while amnio is water-like I doubt it is truly the same as tap water.
 
It’s because, as is my understanding, and what the church teaches, we are BORN into original sin.

So the unborn don’t yet need baptism and can go straight to heaven maybe? Think of all those that are never born for any reason.
 
NowHereThis said:
and baptism is necessary for salvation, why does the church wait until after birth to baptize?

I read the “Ask an Apologist” answer on this which was “we just trust God that fetuses that die will make it to heaven without baptism”, but that seems pretty blithe when you can just move baptism back to as close to conception as possible. Otherwise, either the belief that baptism is necessary or the belief that life begins at conception seems shaky. Why not just trust God that sins will be forgiven without baptism, for example?
Click to expand...
Jesus did not comment specifically upon infants that die without baptism. He did for adults.

John 3
4 Nicodemus saith 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 again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. 7 Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again.
Click to expand...
 
Roseeurekacross said:
It’s because, as is my understanding, and what the church teaches, we are BORN into original sin.
Click to expand...
Mary was conceived, not born without original sin (i.e. she was given the grace at conception), so I disagree with that. I think original sin is present at ensoulment.
 
Yup, this is a biggie. The Catholic positions on baptism and the beginning of individual life are not compatible. If Jesus believed that individual human life began at conception, and he believed that infant baptism was necessary, or even important, he would obviously have instituted a sacrament of baptism that could be administered to zygotes, embryos and foetuses. He did not. And neither did the Church, despite for many years believing that unbaptised infants went to hell, or, later, limbo. Modern Catholic apologists are unable to address the illogicalities of this one, and resort to saying that God’s mercy is without limit. If so, why bother with infant baptism at all?
 
Conversely, the protestant position that Grace from God is a free gift is belied by their belief that the reception of Grace through baptism requires an act of the will to accept (and therefore they reject infant baptism). If protestants really believed that God’s grace was a free gift, then they would wholeheartedly support the baptizing of infants.

Conversely, the Catholic position makes perfect sense: God is free to give saving grace to whomever He chooses. We baptize infants into the church as a form of special grace to cleanse original sin, but God is still free to dispense that grace to the unbaptized as well, including babies still in the womb. Nonetheless, no one is saved without their own consent to God, so the best that anyone can say is that we know that, through God’s justice, there is a path to salvation for miscarried children, but that we can’t know the outcome and have to entrust ourselves to our merciful, loving, and just God.

Also, there is no formal teaching on the salvation of unbaptized babies in the womb, limbo was merely a theological speculation and never a formal teaching of the church (nor was any previous belief).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top