Infant Baptism - is it what God intended?

[slh3016]

God’s grace is a free gift to all who ACCEPT it. If we give the illusion of salvation to people by baptizing people, but there is no sincere heart of repentance, then we are misleading people and making baptism worth nothing really at all except a show to make us feel good.

Is God’s grace not available to those who cannot “accept it”? IOW, God’s grace is not available to infants and those who mentally lack the ability to “accept it”… what of them, then?

You may say that they don’t need it because they have not and cannot sin, but that would imply that they don’t need a Savior. Doesn’t everyone need a Savior? Or do I just need a Savior if I sin? What if I never sin?

Now, I know you are thinking, “There is no way to go without sinning! Of course you are going to sin and therefore you need a Savior.”

My reply then would be, “Why do I have to sin? What makes me sin? I’m born without any kind of sinful tendency because Original Sin doesn’t exist, remember?!?! Why do I need a Savior?”

See, this argument could go on and on and on and the point is that no, a baby or a person without the mental capacity to willfully sin will not incur any personal sin but Jesus is still their Savior and they can still be part of the covenant family. Baptism brings them to the table of the Sacraments and into the Family of God.

I also sense the Holy Spirit when I am witnessing a baptism. It is a powerful thing. I don’t think the power comes from the water, but in what the individual’s heart is speaking to God and committing to do with their life as well as what the Holy Spirit is working in them and those around them at that moment.

I certainly don’t have hostility toward infant baptism. I think most people do it with sincere love for their child and wonderful intentions to bring their child into faith. I also feel sincerely that taking the step for yourself and changing your identity by making a commitment and symbolically dying with Christ in the water and raising in new life is too powerful to miss. This is too great a commitment to let someone else take this step for you.

Lots of things come to mind when I read these two paragraphs.

First, as has already been stated, the water has no power. The water is only the mechanism in which the Holy Spirit works. It is NOT the only mechanism through which the Holy Spirit works, but it is the normative mechanism.

Second, “taking the step for yourself, changing your identity, making a commitment” sounds an awful lot like a “works based religion.”

Third, living the Christian life definitely IS a commitment that no one can do for any of us. No one can sanctify us but the Holy Spirit and it is a process over the course of our lives. That is why the Bible speaks so much of keeping the faith, running the race, endurance to the end, etc. THAT is the commitment we all have to make post-baptism. Every Catholic has to make that decision for himself to accept the graces that God gives him or reject those graces. That is a decision separate and apart from baptism. Baptism is the initial [normative] infusion of sanctifying grace by which the Holy Spirit infuses our soul with it. We retain or deplete that grace through our willful sinning and disobedience. We can increase or maintain that grace by our participation in the sacraments, of which baptism is the gateway.

 

[susanlo]

I really don’t think we are that far off when it comes to adults being baptized. We both agree that an adult must believe in Jesus and consent to baptism. This belief precedes baptism.

Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

Acts 10: 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message…….47“Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Acts 16: 14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15 When** she and the members of her household were baptized**, she invited us to her home.

Acts 16: 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

Acts 19:44 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues** and prophesied.

The jailer was told that his family must believe in Jesus to be saved and then get baptized. Cornelius was filled with the Holy Spirit before being baptized. At what moment were they saved? At their belief or when they hit the water?

I don’t think that anyone here is stating that if an adult believer is walking across the street to receive baptism, but gets hit by a bus, that it would be impossible for God to grant them admission to heaven. Whether we call it ‘baptism of desire’ or ‘already saved,’ I really can’t see the difference. I can’t imagine if in the Catholic Church someone can’t be saved or receive the Holy Spirit until they are baptized that they would make them wait for up to a year for baptism. At my church and many churches that practice believer’s baptism, baptism occurs within a few weeks of initial belief in Jesus. It is seen as the most important step in starting in the Christian faith. It is not ok to live your life as an adult Christian for years and years and not receive baptism.

I think that our difference in belief is whether an infant is born pure and innocent until his or her inherent sinful nature causes them to willfully sin and separate themselves from God - or whether an infant is born tainted with sin and in need of being cleansed of inherent guilt. We also disagree as to whether a non-believing child baptized without professing any faith is a valid baptism.

We both believe that baptism is a powerful spiritual event that the Holy Spirit is at work in and is essential to the salvation process. But we both believe that someone is technically saved the moment they profess belief, are filled with the Holy Spirit and/or express a desire to become baptized. Right?**

 

[Church_Militant]

I think that our difference in belief is whether an infant is born pure and innocent until his or her inherent sinful nature causes them to willfully sin and separate themselves from God - or whether an infant is born tainted with sin and in need of being cleansed of inherent guilt. We also disagree as to whether a non-believing child baptized without professing any faith is a valid baptism.

We both believe that baptism is a powerful spiritual event that the Holy Spirit is at work in and is essential to the salvation process. But we both believe that someone is technically saved the moment they profess belief, are filled with the Holy Spirit and/or express a desire to become baptized. Right?

Not so fast. Don’t include Catholics in such a blanket statement because it’s not true.

We profess and teach that **the possibility exists **that people can be saved under certain pretty specific circumstances, but to preach and teach salvation as you “Baptists/Anabaptists” do is doctrinal error and belief in such is contingent upon buying into a misinterpretation of the Word of God.

• Original Sin
• Original Sin Updated (or Outdated?)
• Is Original Sin communicated to us at birth? Video
• Original Sin
• Is there any biblical evidence for the Catholic doctrine of original sin?
• Original Sin, Again and Again

 

[slh3016]

I think that our difference in belief is whether an infant is born pure and innocent until his or her inherent sinful nature causes them to willfully sin and separate themselves from God - or whether an infant is born tainted with sin and in need of being cleansed of inherent guilt. We also disagree as to whether a non-believing child baptized without professing any faith is a valid baptism.

Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”

Are any of us born pure in heart? I think the answer is no. I don’t have time to look up specific Bible passages right now but suffice to say, and you agree as stated in the underlined above, we are are born with a sinful nature (IOW, Original Sin) and this sinful nature/taint of sin/whatever you want to call it defiles our hearts. They are not pure. Before we can see God (the Beatific Vision), our hearts must be made pure. We, in and of ourselves, cannot purify our hearts. Only God can do that. How does He do that? The normative means is through baptism.

 

[Vico]

1 Cor. 7
To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean but as it is they are holy.

So, if a person stays with a spouse who is an unbeliever, his/her children are holy because they are baptized.
So, why would leaving the spouse mean that the children are no longer baptized/holy?
I think he is talking about something else here. Is he referring to the fact that the children will be in a family with legitimate parents?

Haydock Commentary on 1 Cor 7:14-16

Ver. 14-16.

Is sanctified. The meaning is not that the faith of the husband, or the wife is of itself sufficient to put the unbelieving party, or their children, in the state of grace and salvation: but that it is very often an occasion of their sanctification, by bringing them to the true faith. (Challoner)

— Sanctification which has different significations, cannot here signify that an infidel is truly and properly sanctified, or justified, by being married to a faithful believer; therefore we can only understand an improper sanctification, so that such an infidel, though not yet converted, need not be looked upon as unclean, but in the dispositions of being converted, especially living peaceably together, and consenting that their children be baptized, by which they are truly sanctified.

— How knowest thou, O wife? &c. These words seem to give the reason, why they may part, when they cannot live peaceably, and when there is little prospect that the party that is an infidel will be converted. (Witham)

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t think that anyone here is stating that if an adult believer is walking across the street to receive baptism, but gets hit by a bus, that it would be impossible for God to grant them admission to heaven. Whether we call it ‘baptism of desire’ or ‘already saved,’ I really can’t see the difference. I can’t imagine if in the Catholic Church someone can’t be saved or receive the Holy Spirit until they are baptized that they would make them wait for up to a year for baptism. At my church and many churches that practice believer’s baptism, baptism occurs within a few weeks of initial belief in Jesus. It is seen as the most important step in starting in the Christian faith. It is not ok to live your life as an adult Christian for years and years and not receive baptism.

I think that our difference in belief is whether an infant is born pure and innocent until his or her inherent sinful nature causes them to willfully sin and separate themselves from God - or whether an infant is born tainted with sin and in need of being cleansed of inherent guilt. We also disagree as to whether a non-believing child baptized without professing any faith is a valid baptism.

We both believe that baptism is a powerful spiritual event that the Holy Spirit is at work in and is essential to the salvation process. But we both believe that someone is technically saved the moment they profess belief, are filled with the Holy Spirit and/or express a desire to become baptized. Right?

I definitely believe there is a need to discern our salvation and keeping ourselves in saving grace. The exact moment can depend on an individual. Some have a vivid moment they know when they accepted the Gospel and turned from sin. Others who have been raised in a Christian home, don’t always have that distinct moment. They never rejected what was instilled in them from early. I am like the later. Yet, I remember becoming of the age of reason and being moved through the preaching and Scriptures at the Evangelical Free church I was raised in. Was this a moment of salvation? Yes, probably. It was not until about 20 yrs later that I was Baptized! Was that a moment of salvation? Yes, probably. I was compelled by the Spirit to submit to Baptism. This was not through my E. Free church, or my parents. It was the Catholic faith. I was never instructed to be Baptized before walking into the Catholic Church.

We should not separate our salvation with our Baptism. And we should not separate our Baptism with belief and faith. Faith is a gift. Belief is a privilege. Baptism is a command in order to be initiated into the life of the Church.

The real crux of the matter, for me, is the duty and responsibility of the parents who bring their children to Baptism. This is an obligation, which ought to be received with joy, to raise these children in the Spirit of their Baptism. I would like to see a stronger emphasis on this in the Church, though I’m sure it varies from parish to parish. In the end, the culpability of one Baptized as an infant, yet never afforded proper instruction is very low. Yet that work of God and the mark the Spirit left with them continues to groan and struggle for their conversion. Still, some discard their conscience.

Is there a difference with a Baptized child and a non-Baptized child, even years later? That is a question which cannot be calculated.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

susanlo:

We both believe that baptism is a powerful spiritual event that the Holy Spirit is at work in and is essential to the salvation process. But we both believe that someone is technically saved the moment they profess belief, are filled with the Holy Spirit and/or express a desire to become baptized. Right?

Unfortunately, as is stated a few posts previously, by Church Militant you are assuming way too much. Not only do Catholics not share in this opinion, but you can also include the overwhelming consensus of world wide Christians.

It’s true, unfortunately, that fundamentalism, the “born-agains”, the Baptists, Socinians, and other extreme reformers are gaining ground quickly around the world, largely due to this generations short attention span, and dislike of anything requiring careful thought. I have this discussion in my own family periodically, as all of them have fallen from the Catholic Faith into easy-peasy fundamentalism. When I try to seriously help them understand the texts from Scripture or Early Church practices their eyes instantly glaze over, and look upon me with suspicion and mistrust.

BUT there is ONE thing you will NEVER hear from a Baptist. This: a strong EXPLICIT mention from either Sacred Scripture or Early Church Practice saying that infant baptism is wrong or forbidden, or that Baptism is merely an affirmation of repentance (no different from John the Baptist’s baptism --which is explicitly denied in Scripture,) or that Baptism does NOT regenerate the soul from death (original and actual sin.)

SO, IOW, Baptists and all of their branches base their firm unshakable convictions on what is NOT said in the Bible. That is very convenient, but very dubious.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I know you have a particular interpretation and understanding of the passages relating to baptism, so beyond the biblical witness…

To deny baptismal regeneration is to

(1) Go against the teaching of two largest Christian communions, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, not to mention the other Eastern churches that broke away in the middle of the first 1,000 years of Christianity.

(2) Go against the oldest Christian traditions, i.e., Catholic and Orthodox, both sharing a common heritage from the original apostolic churches.

(3) Go against the witness and practice of the early church

(4) Go against the unanimous understanding of the early church fathers, that John 3 is referring to water baptism: One must be born again of water and the spirit.

(5) Go against several historic Protestant perspectives that affirm regenerative baptism

(6) Claim that somehow the churches from ancient time until now have been so mistaken on a matter of how one attains salvation.

Important to note: The Church that canonized the New Testament biblical text by and in the fourth century also clearly taught baptismal regeneration. Why trust the decision of the biblical canon, but not its practice of baptism, which was much sooner established – centuries before?

These are not meant to be harsh points. Just things to consider, honestly. This is not about boasting or who is right. It is about what is true. No one owns the faith out of a right; it is a gift to all and available to all who seek it!

 

[susanlo]

I definitely believe there is a need to discern our salvation and keeping ourselves in saving grace. The exact moment can depend on an individual. Some have a vivid moment they know when they accepted the Gospel and turned from sin. Others who have been raised in a Christian home, don’t always have that distinct moment. They never rejected what was instilled in them from early. I am like the later. Yet, I remember becoming of the age of reason and being moved through the preaching and Scriptures at the Evangelical Free church I was raised in. Was this a moment of salvation? Yes, probably. It was not until about 20 yrs later that I was Baptized! Was that a moment of salvation? Yes, probably. I was compelled by the Spirit to submit to Baptism. This was not through my E. Free church, or my parents. It was the Catholic faith. I was never instructed to be Baptized before walking into the Catholic Church.

Does Evangelical Free Church not believe in baptism? Or did they just never bother addressing it? Were your parents ever baptized? I thought only the Quaker faith didn’t use water baptism.

We should not separate our salvation with our Baptism. And we should not separate our Baptism with belief and faith. Faith is a gift. Belief is a privilege. Baptism is a command in order to be initiated into the life of the Church.

The real crux of the matter, for me, is the duty and responsibility of the parents who bring their children to Baptism. This is an obligation, which ought to be received with joy, to raise these children in the Spirit of their Baptism. I would like to see a stronger emphasis on this in the Church, though I’m sure it varies from parish to parish. In the end, the culpability of one Baptized as an infant, yet never afforded proper instruction is very low. Yet that work of God and the mark the Spirit left with them continues to groan and struggle for their conversion. Still, some discard their conscience.

Is there a difference with a Baptized child and a non-Baptized child, even years later? That is a question which cannot be calculated.

I had thought about your last question lately. I learned earlier on these forums that baptism is given to infants not just to erase the guilt of Original Sin in case they die in childhood, but to give them graces that will help them to come to Christ later in life. The Holy Spirit is given to the infant at this time.

It made me wonder if this was true and provided benefit for people. But just among the people who I know who were infant baptized as opposed to those who came to faith and then received baptism, I couldn’t see a clear difference. I thought they should do a survey study of those who were raised in the Christian faith who were infant baptized or not and see what their eventual spiritual state turned out to be. I couldn’t find any articles about that.
Then one day I remembered a study I was looking at earlier by Pew Research that surveyed people and determined the denomination they were raised in and the faith they are in as an adult taking the survey. If we make assumptions about their baptism status based on the church they attended, and see as an adult if they consider themselves to be a Christian we can find some glimpses of the potential benefits.

christianitytoday.com/images/59316.png?h=444&w=620

As I add the total from the first 3 columns of this chart for 1. same denomination 2. other protestant denomination or 3. Catholic, we can see the % of each denomination that maintained their Christian identity as an adult. In descending order, I found:

• = infant baptism

Anabaptist - 93%
Pentecostal - 83%
Baptist - 82%
Restorationist (Church of Christ) - 81%

• Reformed - 80%
• Holiness - 79%
• Lutheran - 76%
• Methodist - 76%
  Adventist - 73%
  ?Non-denominational - 72%
• Presbyterian - 69%
• Congregational - 67%
• Episcopalian - 65%

While we know nothing for certain of the baptisms of those taking this survey and it would be inappropriate to draw any real conclusions, it seems that if the results show anything it is that those raised in churches without infant baptism were more likely to identify as a Christian as an adult. I don’t know whether not receiving infant baptism and receiving a believer’s baptism helped them - there are obviously many factors…but I don’t think that not receiving infant baptism hindered them from coming to faith. I think someone should do a real study of people at various ages and compare baptism and faith experiences.
Here is the entire article I pulled the chart from. Catholicism is in a separate chart and 75% of those raised Catholic identify as Christian (Catholic/Protestant) as an adult.
christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/may/pew-evangelicals-stay-strong-us-religious-landscape-study.html

 

[rcwitness]

Does Evangelical Free Church not believe in baptism? Or did they just never bother addressing it? Were your parents ever baptized? I thought only the Quaker faith didn’t use water baptism.

I had thought about your last question lately. I learned earlier on these forums that baptism is given to infants not just to erase the guilt of Original Sin in case they die in childhood, but to give them graces that will help them to come to Christ later in life. The Holy Spirit is given to the infant at this time.

It made me wonder if this was true and provided benefit for people. But just among the people who I know who were infant baptized as opposed to those who came to faith and then received baptism, I couldn’t see a clear difference. I thought they should do a survey study of those who were raised in the Christian faith who were infant baptized or not and see what their eventual spiritual state turned out to be. I couldn’t find any articles about that.
Then one day I remembered a study I was looking at earlier by Pew Research that surveyed people and determined the denomination they were raised in and the faith they are in as an adult taking the survey. If we make assumptions about their baptism status based on the church they attended, and see as an adult if they consider themselves to be a Christian we can find some glimpses of the potential benefits.

christianitytoday.com/images/59316.png?h=444&w=620

As I add the total from the first 3 columns of this chart for 1. same denomination 2. other protestant denomination or 3. Catholic, we can see the % of each denomination that maintained their Christian identity as an adult. In descending order, I found:

• = infant baptism

Anabaptist - 93%
Pentecostal - 83%
Baptist - 82%
Restorationist (Church of Christ) - 81%

• Reformed - 80%
• Holiness - 79%
• Lutheran - 76%
• Methodist - 76%
  Adventist - 73%
  ?Non-denominational - 72%
• Presbyterian - 69%
• Congregational - 67%
• Episcopalian - 65%

While we know nothing for certain of the baptisms of those taking this survey and it would be inappropriate to draw any real conclusions, it seems that if the results show anything it is that those raised in churches without infant baptism were more likely to identify as a Christian as an adult. I don’t know whether not receiving infant baptism and receiving a believer’s baptism helped them - there are obviously many factors…but I don’t think that not receiving infant baptism hindered them from coming to faith. I think someone should do a real study of people at various ages and compare baptism and faith experiences.
Here is the entire article I pulled the chart from. Catholicism is in a separate chart and 75% of those raised Catholic identify as Christian (Catholic/Protestant) as an adult.
christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/may/pew-evangelicals-stay-strong-us-religious-landscape-study.html

Ok, I don’t usually put too much stock in surveys. I think a fair comparison, though, might be to survey all Christian children (both those Baptized as infants and those of claimed Christian parents) to see a more relative result. Because the real question is whether it’s more constructive to Baptize children or just let them decide for it (or decide not for it) later in life.

I think it’s probably true that there are more adult Baptized people who continue practicing their faith. But what about the children who heard the Gospel, but we’re not Baptized by their parents?

 

[susanlo]

Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”

Are any of us born pure in heart? I think the answer is no. I don’t have time to look up specific Bible passages right now but suffice to say, and you agree as stated in the underlined above, we are are born with a sinful nature (IOW, Original Sin) and this sinful nature/taint of sin/whatever you want to call it defiles our hearts. They are not pure. Before we can see God (the Beatific Vision), our hearts must be made pure. We, in and of ourselves, cannot purify our hearts. Only God can do that. How does He do that? The normative means is through baptism.

There is a different between a sinful tendency (consupience) and actual guilt or stain. I believe that every human is born with an inclination to sin. This can be diminished through sanctification, but it doesn’t go away with infant baptism or believer’s baptism. This is a permanent human condition.
I do not believe that children are born tainted with sin or already guilty. While Jesus went around preaching repentance and telling people what they needed to do to become saved, to the children He said (Matthew 19:14) Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
I think that all innocent children can and will grow into sinners. When they become convicted of their sinfulness they can repent and become baptized.

 

[rcwitness]

Does Evangelical Free Church not believe in baptism? Or did they just never bother addressing it? Were your parents ever baptized? I thought only the Quaker faith didn’t use water baptism.

Yes they believe in Baptism… and right, they did not personally invite me to it.

My parents were Baptized before I was born.

When I helped out at their youth group, even after I was Baptized and Confirmed in the Catholic Church, Baptism was spoken little about. The invitation was not to receive Baptism but to ask Jesus into our hearts. I prayed with some to open up to Jesus, ask for forgiveness and accept Him as Lord. I respected staying within the ministry there. But privately I asked why these children aren’t being Baptized. They were accepting Jesus, confessing to be sinfull, but Baptism was left out.

So it’s not just a matter of waiting until the age of reason, or belief in the Gospel, or confessing to need forgiveness through Jesus. It’s about choosing to make a public gesture about wanting to commit Jesus, only when they want to do it. And many don’t even give it serious consideration until their 30s and 40s. So yes, it makes sense that out of those who get Baptized, more Believer Baptists would logically identify themselves as Christians than all those Baptized as infants. That is why I say that it would be more fair to compare all children raised by both types of Christian parents (those Baptized as infants and those witheld from Baptism) to see what they eventually believe and practice at the end of their life.

I’m certainly not opposed to that (the ministries they do provide their youth and members), but don’t agree with diminishing Baptism or thinking it is somehow secondary to accepting Jesus. It goes hand in hand, and Baptism can preclude other ministries, so long as others are not excluded.

If others (ministries like prayer, Church devotion, learning Scripture) are excluded, we are denying that child the k owl edge and education which their Baptism opened a door to. It is dysfunction, and it happens in many Catholic families. And it is in no way part of the Catholic faith, but opposition to it through shame, fear, insecurity, laziness, idleness, etc.

 

[Vico]

There is a different between a sinful tendency (consupience) and actual guilt or stain. I believe that every human is born with an inclination to sin. This can be diminished through sanctification, but it doesn’t go away with infant baptism or believer’s baptism. This is a permanent human condition.
I do not believe that children are born tainted with sin or already guilty. While Jesus went around preaching repentance and telling people what they needed to do to become saved, to the children He said (Matthew 19:14) Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
I think that all innocent children can and will grow into sinners. When they become convicted of their sinfulness they can repent and become baptized.

Yes, the stain of original sin, is reatus poenae (liability for punishment), it is the lack of sanctifying grace at birth, whereas actual guilt (reatus culpae) results from actual sin, and also results in the lack of sanctifying grace (when mortal). Concupiscence is temptation.

 

[Mintaka]

Concupiscence isn’t permanent after we die, or (if Jesus comes first) after we receive our resurrection bodies. It’s only permanent if we go to Hell.

But yeah, concupiscence has become part of our condition during this life on earth.

 

[rcwitness]

I’m certainly not opposed to that (the ministries they do provide their youth and members), but don’t agree with diminishing Baptism or thinking it is somehow secondary to accepting Jesus. It goes hand in hand, and Baptism can preclude other ministries, so long as others are not excluded.

If others (ministries like prayer, Church devotion, learning Scripture) are excluded, we are denying that child the k owl edge and education which their Baptism opened a door to. It is dysfunction, and it happens in many Catholic families. And it is in no way part of the Catholic faith, but opposition to it through shame, fear, insecurity, laziness, idleness, etc.

Correction: I did not mean “preclude”… I meant precede.

 

[slh3016]

There is a different between a sinful tendency (consupience) and actual guilt or stain. I believe that every human is born with an inclination to sin. This can be diminished through sanctification, but it doesn’t go away with infant baptism or believer’s baptism. This is a permanent human condition.
I do not believe that children are born tainted with sin or already guilty. While Jesus went around preaching repentance and telling people what they needed to do to become saved, to the children He said (Matthew 19:14) Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
I think that all innocent children can and will grow into sinners. When they become convicted of their sinfulness they can repent and become baptized.

Here is a good Catholic article explaining concupiscence and how it relates to Original Sin:

newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

 

[slh3016]

There is a different between a sinful tendency (consupience) and actual guilt or stain. I believe that every human is born with an inclination to sin. This can be diminished through sanctification, but it doesn’t go away with infant baptism or believer’s baptism. This is a permanent human condition.
I do not believe that children are born tainted with sin or already guilty. While Jesus went around preaching repentance and telling people what they needed to do to become saved, to the children He said (Matthew 19:14) Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
I think that all innocent children can and will grow into sinners. When they become convicted of their sinfulness they can repent and become baptized.

So, if I understand your position correctly, you do not believe in the guilt that comes with the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, but you affirm concupiscence (temptation) which Catholic teaching says is the effect of OS that remains after baptism?

 

[rcwitness]

I think that baptism changes our identity. When I got married, I walked into the church as a single woman. After taking vows and putting on ‘symbolic’ wedding rings, I walked out of the church with a new status and a new name. I was the same person, but I took on a new identity and saw myself as a different person having made a commitment. That isn’t a perfect analogy, but it is the closest I can think of.

When are a couple who love each other actually regarded married by God? When they fall in love, get engaged, or when they celebrate the Sacrament of Matrimony together?

I agree that the Sacrament of Matrimony has different rules than that of Baptism. The Church could not marry two infants, for example. Holy Matrimony relies on the priesthood of the couple (or at least one), not the Minister, if I am not mistaken.

The privilege of parental Baptism of our children is due to the fact that children are born into the separation of sanctifying grace with God through “fleshly” ancestry of Adam and Eve. It is our carnal nature than earned condemnation by God, and it is Jesus’ overcoming this nature through obedience unto “fleshly” death that earned our sanctification by God.

The part that is most difficult to reconcile, is whether all unbaptized children go to hell. The Church does not teach this and simply confesses not to know. It is basically up to God to know the heart of these little souls and whether they have a desire for Him or not. Maybe they all are accepted, maybe none, or maybe some. We just don’t know.

Still, it is better to bring them into Baptism, rather than remain in a possible “desire for it” since the grace offers growth and peace with God. This we believe through faith and Church Tradition. And I, personally, realize it’s not so clearly expressed in Scripture. I agree with your Scriptural support of adult belief/consent/assent first to receive Baptism.

I think the Apostolic age was so much more concerned with evangelizing the nations, who still had the message to be preached, than instructing those within the Covenant. Once believers were converted and Baptized, the Church would discern valid and lawful practice of Sacraments and disciplines.

 

[susanlo]

So, if I understand your position correctly, you do not believe in the guilt that comes with the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, but you affirm concupiscence (temptation) which Catholic teaching says is the effect of OS that remains after baptism?

No matter the terminology and explanation used, humans have a sinful nature. Baptism does not and can not remove our sinful nature, although with our effort and help from the Holy Spirit we can sin less.

Actual sins can be forgiven by God when people repent and confess their sins.

Why a newly created person with no concept of right or wrong is guilty for something that happened thousands of years ago (or didn’t even literally happen as some Catholics and others believe) doesn’t make sense to me. And even so, we can not remove guilt or believe on behalf of other people. We can only repent of our own sinfulness and confess what our own hearts believe. I don’t believe that God would punish a child that had no opportunity to understand and know about Him.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

No matter the terminology and explanation used, humans have a sinful nature. Baptism does not and can not remove our sinful nature, although with our effort and help from the Holy Spirit we can sin less.

No one says that Baptism removes our sinful nature (concupiscence.)

What Baptism does is gives us a new birth and entrance into the Kingdom of God. Yes, we are still sinners, but O what a difference.

That new birth Sanctifies our soul from ALL sin, both original and actual. We are ransomed OUT OF Satan’s kingdom and INTO the Kingdom of God by this Baptism, which was made Holy by our Redemption by Jesus Christ on the Cross. There is NO OTHER WAY (on earth) to apply this saving grace of redemption upon our souls than Baptism! Personal affirmations of faith DO NOT do it.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to overemphasize the importance and need for Baptism.

THINK! Why is it ALWAYS the FIRST thing done in Acts? The Bible always speaks of HOW MANY were Baptized, not how many made a personal affirmation of faith.

Now there are questions of course about those who die without baptism (like infants and even adults who never received the Gospel.) What becomes of them? The CAtholic Church leaves that in God’s hands. Meaning there is currently no dogmatic statement regarding these souls. But we do believe in a Just God who does not punish people for something they had no hand in.