Infant Baptism - is it what God intended?

[rcwitness]

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.

Ambrose covered this.

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

Only repentance and confession will grant forgiveness for Actual sins. Original Sin can be forgiven the Infants through Baptism.

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.

Parents bring their child to Baptism, they don’t personally remove guilt. Jesus’ merits removes guilt. Even in Confession, the priest does not remove the guilt, but Jesus. The priest is the minister of that act.

Again, Baptism is not magic… when a Baptized child becomes of age and can believe on his/her own that is like a condition on their childhood Baptism. If they do not believe, then their Baptism is of no avail. Does it benefit them? Yes, it is an encounter with the Spirit. We know God’s part is forgiving and welcoming the child. We do not know the child’s part, since we do not know their hearts like He does.

 

[susanlo]

Ambrose covered this.

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

Only repentance and confession will grant forgiveness for Actual sins. Original Sin can be forgiven the Infants through Baptism.

I agree that repentance and confession are what is needed for God to forgive sins.

Ambrose actually states in his On the Mysteries that:
“Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism.” Chapter 6 #32 newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

So he had a different idea about how hereditary/original sin is removed. It wasn’t until Augustine a short while after this and the 5th century Council of Carthage when baptism was routinely given to infants for the reason of the guilt of Original Sin.

Both Ambrose and Augustine weren’t baptized until adulthood.

 

[Vico]

I agree that repentance and confession are what is needed for God to forgive sins.

Ambrose actually states in his On the Mysteries that:
“Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism.” Chapter 6 #32 newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

So he had a different idea about how hereditary/original sin is removed. It wasn’t until Augustine a short while after this and the 5th century Council of Carthage when baptism was routinely given to infants for the reason of the guilt of Original Sin.

Both Ambrose and Augustine weren’t baptized until adulthood.

Infant baptism was reported as a Christian practice, by St. Saint Irenaeus (lived 130-202 A.D.)

 

[susanlo]

Infant baptism was reported as a Christian practice, by St. Saint Irenaeus (lived 130-202 A.D.)

I agree that infants were baptized early on at least in some areas. It was not occurring everywhere until the 5th century.

 

[rcwitness]

I agree that repentance and confession are what is needed for God to forgive sins.

Ambrose actually states in his On the Mysteries that:
“Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism.” Chapter 6 #32 newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

So he had a different idea about how hereditary/original sin is removed. It wasn’t until Augustine a short while after this and the 5th century Council of Carthage when baptism was routinely given to infants for the reason of the guilt of Original Sin.

Both Ambrose and Augustine weren’t baptized until adulthood.

John 13 Haydock commentary:

He that is washed,*&c. The feet are always apt to contract some dust or dirt; and in the mystical sense, he that is washed by the sacraments of baptism, or penance, from greater sins, must still endeavour to cleanse, and purify his affections from lesser failings of human frailty. And you, my apostles, are clean from greater offences,*but not all of you,*meaning the traitor Judas. (Witham) — It is impossible that the extremities of the soul (if we may be allowed the expression) should not, as long as we tread upon this earth, receive some stain or other; although in the opinion of men, the soul appear just. Many indeed after baptism, are covered with the dust of sin, even to the head, but those who are disciples indeed, need only to wash their feet. (Origen, tract. 32. in Joan.) — The foulness of the feet, when the rest is clean, signifies the earthly affections, and remains of former sins remitted, which are to be cleansed by devout acts of charity and humility. (St. Ambrose, lib. iii. de Sacram. chap. 1; St. Bernard, de cæn. Dom. ser. 1.) — Though his disciples were clean, still he washed their feet, comformably to that of the Apocalypse, chap. xxii. “He that is clean, let him be cleansed still.” (Origen, tract. 32. in Joan.)

I’m not sure about St Ambrose, but I think Augustine’s father was not Christian, therefore he may not have permitted his wife to bring young Augustine to Baptism.

 

[JMM1957]

I agree that infants were baptized early on at least in some areas. It was not occurring everywhere until the 5th century.

You think it took 300 or so years to go from infrequent infant baptism to being widely done? What’s your source on this please?

I’m fairly confident that baptism, infants or otherwise, was not done specifically to remove Original Sin in the beginning, it was done in place of circumcision to show the person’s entrance into the new covenant family.

 

[Vico]

I agree that infants were baptized early on at least in some areas. It was not occurring everywhere until the 5th century.

How can you know that? The practice in each place may not have been uniform in each place and could have included infants in each place.

 

[rcwitness]

I agree that repentance and confession are what is needed for God to forgive sins.

Ambrose actually states in his On the Mysteries that:
“Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism.” Chapter 6 #32 newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

So he had a different idea about how hereditary/original sin is removed. It wasn’t until Augustine a short while after this and the 5th century Council of Carthage when baptism was routinely given to infants for the reason of the guilt of Original Sin.

Both Ambrose and Augustine weren’t baptized until adulthood.

… but that is a peculiar thing to say. I’m not sure it fits well with either of our theologies…

Did you read that whole thing? It has a lot of testimony to the Sacramental power of water Baptism.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I agree that infants were baptized early on at least in some areas. It was not occurring everywhere until the 5th century.

This is exactly the type of information that is presented in the book I mentioned earlier: The History of Infant Baptism by W. Wall. He PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt, that infant baptism is Apostolic in original and was used by the Universal Church, everywhere and always from that time on.

 

[susanlo]

You think it took 300 or so years to go from infrequent infant baptism to being widely done? What’s your source on this please?

I don’t know how soon the first infant baptism occurred. I believe it was occurring by the 2nd or 3rd century. Tertullian discouraged baptizing “little children” in his writing On Baptism Chapter 18:

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asks.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

The Didache, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and others speak of the requirement for fasting and prayer prior to being baptized with no exceptions for age. There was no mention of a separate practice for confirmation or of a practice to baptize children who could not fast, pray and participate in repentance and confession of faith.

Many sources speak of the development and introduction of infant baptism over the early centuries such as books like this:

books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=baptism+in+the+early+church&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL45u7r7_OAhWHXh4KHWy6AKUQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Anglican author JND Kelly alludes to the fact that infant baptism spread and became more common over the early centuries in his well-known book Early Christian Doctrines. On page 207 he states that in the third century, “Infant baptism was now common,” and on page 430 he states that during the time period between Nicea and Chalcedon “The widespread diffusion of infant baptism called for a rationale.”
archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n0/mode/2up

Actually, 200-400 years is a lot of time for practices to change. I think of how much Christianity has changed between 1716 and today. Christianity has faced many issues and changes in just the last 50 years. I don’t find it too unbelievable that practices could change.

I’m fairly confident that baptism, infants or otherwise, was not done specifically to remove Original Sin in the beginning, it was done in place of circumcision to show the person’s entrance into the new covenant family.

Well, for the first few decades they didn’t know baptism was to replace circumcision. For about a decade no uncircumcised male received baptism. In Acts 10, Cornelius and his family are the first to be baptized without circumcision, but there were ongoing controversies as noted in Acts 15 and Galatians 2.
Was OT circumcision considered to be regenerative in the way baptism is? In the early centuries did they believe that baptism was regenerative and life giving? Or was it a sign of the covenant? I am hearing both answers. But I do agree that the concept of Original Sin took centuries to develop and was not a reason for baptism in the earliest of Christianity.

 

[susanlo]

… but that is a peculiar thing to say. I’m not sure it fits well with either of our theologies…

Did you read that whole thing? It has a lot of testimony to the Sacramental power of water Baptism.

I read the whole writing last year. I do think it is unusual that he would give this reason. I am not quoting it because I believe exactly what he says. I am giving it as an example of the variation in beliefs and understandings of baptism in the early centuries and that the concepts put forth in the Doctrine of Original Sin were not already understood by all in the centuries prior to it being written.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Well, for the first few decades they didn’t know baptism was to replace circumcision. For about a decade no uncircumcised male received baptism. In Acts 10, Cornelius and his family are the first to be baptized without circumcision, but there were ongoing controversies as noted in Acts 15 and Galatians 2.
Was OT circumcision considered to be regenerative in the way baptism is? In the early centuries did they believe that baptism was regenerative and life giving? Or was it a sign of the covenant? I am hearing both answers. But I do agree that the concept of Original Sin took centuries to develop and was not a reason for baptism in the earliest of Christianity.

Circumcision was about entering into God’s Covenant. That is what Baptism does too. That is why the APOSTLES KNEW infant baptism would be just like circumcision. However, infants are always brought by early Christian converts, so it is the converts we hear about in the NT.

Your assumption that infant baptism was something that gradually developed is wrong. For as many books as you can find saying this is so, we can cite just as many others denying it. So I guess books aren’t going to help you (or us.)

 

[rcwitness]

Circumcision was about entering into God’s Covenant. That is what Baptism does too. That is why the APOSTLES KNEW infant baptism would be just like circumcision. However, infants are always brought by early Christian converts, so it is the converts we hear about in the NT.

Your assumption that infant baptism was something that gradually developed is wrong. For as many books as you can find saying this is so, we can cite just as many others denying it. So I guess books aren’t going to help you (or us.)

To tell you the truth, I don’t find the notion of a parent waiting for their child to reach an age that they are able to say with understanding, yes or no to Baptism such a wrong. I think the criticism of us who do Baptize our children to be more wrong.

But believed, as Susan does, when she expresses a well researched conclusion that she does not find enough evidence to support the practice, I think it should not be viewed as grounds for excommunication in itself.

As long as the gospel is instilled through instruction and example, it’s probably no worse, better than a Catholic Baptizing and then being a hypocrite.

I think it lacks understanding of both the role and privilege of parents and the meaning of Baptism in context of our children. It doesn’t mean they are intentionally with oldie their child from God’s grace. But it seems to mean that the only way God’s grace can be effective is through adult understanding and consent.

I realize the position also believes children are already in a state of purity. They don’t need forgiveness. Obviously I believe this is not true. They are born from below, not from above. being born from above takes Baptism and belief. Until belief is possible, the children rely on Baptism, or the unseen desire from their soul. As for my children, they will be brought to Baptism by myself and their mother. We brought them into this world, and we will bring them into the grace of Jesus. When they are old enough to accept and reject that Covenant, then there is nothing I can do, but pray and be the example I promised to be at their Baptism.

I don’t believe they need forgiveness from their inherited sinfulness, but only the belief and obedience to remain in His grace.

The thing is, is that my childhood E Free church does believe in Original Sin. They must just think infants automatically are given Baptismal forgiveness until they actually sin, which they believe is inevitable, and then must accept Baptism after publicly committing to Jesus.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

rcwitness:

To tell you the truth, I don’t find the notion of a parent waiting for their child to reach an age that they are able to say with understanding, yes or no to Baptism such a wrong. I think the criticism of us who do Baptize our children to be more wrong.

But believed, as Susan does, when she expresses a well researched conclusion that she does not find enough evidence to support the practice, I think it should not be viewed as grounds for excommunication in itself.

The problem is this: The hypocrisy of the parents baptizing their child is a mixed blessing. Just as a sinful, hypocritical priest can still effectively administer the Sacraments and say Mass, the shortcomings of the Parents do not outweigh their Faith in bringing their child into the Covenant by Baptism.

Neither does that negate the effectiveness, and importance of having the child baptized.

For someone to judgmentally evaluate the external holiness of one who is baptized as an infant, as opposed to an adult is false and dangerous.

Of course there is more obligation on the parents than JUST baptism. It is necessary to teach their children the Faith as well.

Lastly a TRULY WELL RESEARCHED history of Infant Baptism would actually PROVE the Apostolic origins, and Universal application from that time forward of infant baptism. If one shuts ones eyes to the evidence (like those in the flat-earth society) any belief can be justified.

I think it lacks understanding of both the role and privilege of parents and the meaning of Baptism in context of our children. It doesn’t mean they are intentionally with oldie their child from God’s grace. But it seems to mean that the only way God’s grace can be effective is through adult understanding and consent.

I don’t believe that’s true. In fact there are MANY examples in the Bible of parents making these decisions for their children, and as a result, the child is immediately in the hand of God. Viz: Samson, Samuel, John the Baptist.

I think we have to realize that in the Spiritual Order, their are realities that as carnal humans, we just can’t see or appreciate fully, unless we have great Faith. So making judgements based on externals is false and dangerous. We certainly have the Holy Eucharist as an example (par excellence) of that reality.

As for my children, they will be brought to Baptism by myself and their mother. We brought them into this world, and we will bring them into the grace of Jesus. When they are old enough to accept and reject that Covenant, then there is nothing I can do, but pray and be the example I promised to be at their Baptism.

Praise be to God!

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t believe that’s true. In fact there are MANY examples in the Bible of parents making these decisions for their children, and as a result, the child is immediately in the hand of God. Viz: Samson, Samuel, John the Baptist.

My comment was about the position of Believer’s Baptism. Sorry, I realize I jumped back and forth in my post. I should have been more clear.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

My comment was about the position of Believer’s Baptism. Sorry, I realize I jumped back and forth in my post. I should have been more clear.

Ah, yes. I didn’t understand that.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The problem is this: The hypocrisy of the parents baptizing their child is a mixed blessing. Just as a sinful, hypocritical priest can still effectively administer the Sacraments and say Mass, the shortcomings of the Parents do not outweigh their Faith in bringing their child into the Covenant by Baptism.

Neither does that negate the effectiveness, and importance of having the child baptized.

For someone to judgmentally evaluate the external holiness of one who is baptized as an infant, as opposed to an adult is false and dangerous.

Of course there is more obligation on the parents than JUST baptism. It is necessary to teach their children the Faith as well.

Lastly a TRULY WELL RESEARCHED history of Infant Baptism would actually PROVE the Apostolic origins, and Universal application from that time forward of infant baptism. If one shuts ones eyes to the evidence (like those in the flat-earth society) any belief can be justified.

I don’t believe that’s true. In fact there are MANY examples in the Bible of parents making these decisions for their children, and as a result, the child is immediately in the hand of God. Viz: Samson, Samuel, John the Baptist.

I think we have to realize that in the Spiritual Order, their are realities that as carnal humans, we just can’t see or appreciate fully, unless we have great Faith. So making judgements based on externals is false and dangerous. We certainly have the Holy Eucharist as an example (par excellence) of that reality.

Praise be to God!

I would think that one virtue of a Sacrament is that you pronounce the words and it’s a “done deal”.

If I say I’m sorry for my sins, and the confessor pronounces the words, then I’m forgiven.

It doesn’t matter if I don’t have a crying breakdown or not.

[Apologies for seeming flippant.]

 

[rcwitness]

So, about the Baptism views, I guess we would see Baptism (in an adult) the step commanded by Jesus when we do accept the Gospel, “believe in Jesus as Lord and savior”, formally accept His washing of sins, devote to Him, enter the Covenant, become a member of the Church of God, etc. Not something as separate or distinct from belief as maybe Evangelicals practice.

It is a rite of initiation necessary to believing in Him and obeying His commands.

But not absolutely necessary for one who by no fault of their own were unable to receive because of lack of knowledge, or witheld against their will. These situations are considered Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood.

An infant is different in ways.

They are brought to Baptism by their parents (or legal gaurdian) on account of Original Sin.

They do not need to actually profess/confess since they have committed no Actual sin.

The Baptism has effectualness on God’s part but is also dependant on the message of Jesus in order to establish belief and growth in faith when the person becomes of the age of reason.

So there is acceptance by the Church, Grace bestowed from God, reconciliation from Original Sin, and certain privileges and obligations established.

The privileges come by the Church (such as burial rites) and obligations are over the parents until the age of reason (such as faith formation/instruction and Christian example).

The command that “Whoever believes and is Baptized will be saved” is what is important. And remaining in Him is bound to Communion.

 

[rcwitness]

I’m kinda familiar with “a dedication” ritual.

And to be honest, if there were two options, one being raised by good Christian parents who teach by example and good behavior and perform a dedication ritual or raised by hypocrites who Baptized me but never Teach or follow or pray with me, I would choose the first. For their sake and mine.

But the third option of an infant Baptism and Good Christian parents would be my best choice.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Baptism within the Catholic Church used to be pretty simple. Call ahead and bring the baby in and get it baptized. The priest makes a record of it and you get the certificate.

Nowadays, people are refused baptism for their babies for (to me) specious reasons.

The mother is not married.

The parents did not take a lengthy course.

One of the parents is not “fully” Catholic.

So you wonder why adults are leaving the Church?

People get tired of being REQUIRED to jump through hoops.

The Sacrament of Baptism requires water and a priest.

In an emergency, ANYONE can baptise a baby. It does not require a lengthy ritual. Or even a priest. In an emergency, even an atheist can perform a baptism.

We used to study this in the Baltimore Catechism.