Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[QNDNNDQDCE]

If you go over the thread, you will see that the problem in Dr. Onald’s posts was less that he was attacking infant baptism and more that he misunderstood what the Church taught about the hope of salvation for infants without sacramental baptism.

 

[po18guy]

I may not live long enough to read 285 posts! I have spare catechisms. I would gladly send him one if he is interested.

Often, the best contribution I can make to a thread is to bail from it. Asking pardon, I shall do so.

 

[Porknpie]

What strikes me as odd, is that the majority of protestant denominations baptize infants. So why are the BB (Believer’sBaptism) guns always pointed at the Catholic Church? If I were a protestant that was truly concerned about infant baptism, I would protest first over at C.A.R.M., where they do not even baptize adults!

Good point on the rest of protestantism baptizing infants.

So, when - and who - in the history of Christianity did anyone first practice:

1. Baptism delayed to the age of reason?
2. Symbolic baptism of adults?
3. No baptism at all?

 

[JonNC]

For charity’s sake, let’s say no. Yet, it appeared to me that he was leading things in the believer’s baptism direction - what other purpose could such a hypothetical question have? But, as has been pointed out clearly, such a doctrine was not in early Christianity and was a post-reformation development.

What strikes me as odd, is that the majority of protestant denominations baptize infants. So why are the BB (Believer’sBaptism) guns always pointed at the Catholic Church? If I were a protestant that was truly concerned about infant baptism, I would protest first over at C.A.R.M., where they do not even baptize adults!

They’re not, Po. Often Lutherans are in the cross hairs.

According to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on their baptism page…

In Holy Baptism, God liberates us from sin and death by joining us to the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Born children of a fallen humanity, in the baptismal waters we become God’s reborn children and inherit eternal life. By water and the Holy Spirit we are made members of the Church, which is Christ’s body. As we live with him and with his people, we grow in faith, love and obedience to God’s will.

That is a lie of the devil. Our sins are NOT forgiven when we are baptized. What does the Bible teach?

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” -Romans 10:9,10

I don’t see anything in there about being baptized. Romans 10:13 is very clear, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Why are the Lutherans teaching damnable heresy by ADDING the work of baptism to faith in Christ. By the way, the Lutherans (as do the Catholics) make baptism a SACRAMENT. The Bible only teaches baptism as an ordinance.

Luther’s Large Catechism (IV, 83) instructs that Baptism “overcomes and takes away sin.”

The following is quoted from the Augsburg Confession (What Evangelical Lutherans Believe, Teach and Confess)…
•Article 9 - Baptism ◦We believe, teach and confess that Baptism with water in the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is necessary because Christ commanded it so and that the grace of God (forgiveness and renewal) is offered through it (Matt. 28:29; John 3:5; Eph 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21). Children should also be baptized, for in their being offered to God through Baptism the too are received into His grace (Mark 10:14; Acts 2:38-39).

Lutherans teach the heresy that baptism is NECESSARY for salvation, but the Bible clearly denies such foolishness. Charles Spurgeon preached a sermon against baptismal regeneration. In 1st Corinthians 1:17, the Apostle Paul firmly declares “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel…” Surely Paul would NOT have made such a statement if baptism were essential to being saved. I actually heard a Church of Christ minister insist that the Apostle Paul had assistants who baptized the converts. The Bible never teaches any such foolishness.

By the way, the Church of Christ is straight out of the pits of hell too…DANGER! The world is filled with deceptive cults. Lutheranism is DANGEROUS!

Its from David J. Stewart on that jesus dash is dash savior dot com website.

As for going over to CARM, how effective do you think I would be in convincing them? About as effective as Scitor has been in convincing us - not at all.

Jon

 

[adrift]

If you go over the thread, you will see that the problem in Dr. Onald’s posts

Is he a Dr or is he D Ronald? Did he tell you he was a Dr.? This doesn’t matter especially to this thread but I have wondered because I always see dr. too.

 

[dronald]

Is he a Dr or is he D Ronald? Did he tell you he was a Dr.? This doesn’t matter especially to this thread but I have wondered because I always see dr. too.

This is the Internet; I can be whoever I want. Bwahahah

(I’m not a doctor.)

 

[adrift]

This is the Internet; I can be whoever I want. Bwahahah

(I’m not a doctor.)

There there of course you can It surprised me that someone else sees dr too.

Back to infant baptism.

 

[SPH1]

I assure you that I’m very serious. How can the Church in one place declare that a infant must be baptized and not know why?

No, the Church knows why. A baptised infant who passes away is certain of Heaven, having no original or actual sin.

What I find confusing is why some Protestants are so insistent about the age and mode of baptism, without really knowing “why” since, to them, baptism isn’t even necessary.

 

[SPH1]

I’m wondering if I can Baptize a fully grown man who has never been Baptized and doesn’t wish to be?

That’s not to say that he’s trying to stop the Baptism, I just mean if I wanted I could Baptize him and call him Baptized, even if he never asked for it?

Well, you appear to actually have two scenarios. 1. The man doesn’t wish to be. 2. Simply never asked for it.

In both cases - certainly with 1. and likely 2. - I’d say that the baptism was ineffective. But again with 2., if he’s not trying to stop the Baptism, then perhaps he is actually agreeing, in which case it would likely be effective.

 

[SPH1]

It’s been a few days since I’ve been here where our SBC friend turned to the ECF’s as a last gasp of the SBC to deny the validity of infant baptism.

It occured to me that the SBC has quoted nothing showing that the early Catholic Church, or parts of it, not only denied infant baptism BUT ALSO re-baptised those who were baptised as infants. Surely that would have caused as much, or more, controversy in the Church as the Donatists (referring to that earlier, ancient law and the worthiness of the priest to administer baptism.)

Infant baptism may have been the subject of discussion from time to time, but I do not see any anabaptists re infant baptism in the early Church. Where are the ECF’s who not only questioned infant baptism but also rebaptised on that account?

I do not yet see any Southern Baptists in the ancient Church. Not one.

 

[dronald]

Well, you appear to actually have two scenarios. 1. The man doesn’t wish to be. 2. Simply never asked for it.

In both cases - certainly with 1. and likely 2. - I’d say that the baptism was ineffective. But again with 2., if he’s not trying to stop the Baptism, then perhaps he is actually agreeing, in which case it would likely be effective.

My scenario was for someone who was being baptized but didn’t fully understand what was going on just like an infant. My question was answered though, so no big deal.

 

[Cathoholic]

dronald. You asked on post 266 (Whew. A lot of posts).

I’m wondering if I can Baptize a fully grown man who has never been Baptized and doesn’t wish to be?

That’s not to say that he’s trying to stop the Baptism, I just mean if I wanted I could Baptize him and call him Baptized, even if he never asked for it?

Bold and UL of your quote mine.

The answer is: No.

You cannot for example, “splash water at the swimming pool” on adults Baptizing them in any way if they are not seeking Baptism.

Likewise . . . .

The Catholic Church teaches that ADULTS need to believe in some sense first, and be Baptized (Mark 16:16).

The Catholic Church teaches that ADULTS need to repent of their sins first, and be Baptized (Acts 2:38).

The Catholic Church teaches that ADULTS need to rise first (stand up and come of their own volition), and be Baptized (Acts 22:16).

The Church affirms all of these Bible verses.

No forced Baptisms are even possible. I know Catholics have disobeyed Church teachings and carried out forced “Baptisms” but with those impediments present (a person resisting, even interiorly), there is NO Baptism that takes place in those situations.

Think of the Israelites, the Red Sea, and Being SAVED by Water and the Holy Spirit

Recall the Holy Spirit (see Exodus 13 and the Shekinah glory cloud—the Holy Spirit) led the people by a theophany of a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night out of bondage.

Yes it was the Holy Spirit that saved the Israelites.

But the Holy Spirit used “WATER” to save them. The “water” of the Red Sea!

The Israelites were saved by “water and the Spirit”. (That concept sounds familiar)

The Israelites were delivered from bondage by water and the Spirit.

Think deeper concerning the Israelites and this crossing of the Red Sea.

The adults I suppose COULD have stayed on the Egyptian side and not crossed the Red Sea with Moses.

The BABIES would depend upon their parents to make that decision for them (just like they would with for example, circumcision).

And the parents DID (“by faith”) make this decision for them!

And Moses would NOT have told the parents, “Well hey! Wait a minute! These babies have to wait on the shore on the Egyptian side of the Red Sea until they are old enough to make a spirit-filled decision and accept Yahweh into their own hearts for themselves.”

Moses would never have said this.

This leading their own infants through the Red Sea was done by faith—the faith of the parents of the children.

HEBREWS 11:29 29 By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as if on dry land; but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned.

By faith the infants crossed the Red Sea—by the faith of their parents.

**The Israelites were saved in a natural sense by water and
saved in a supernatural sense by the Spirit when crossing the Red Sea . . . **

Likewise Baptism saves us in a natural sense by water and a supernatural sense by the Spirit.

The water of the Red Sea and the Holy Spirit leading them—God used the real actual water as a conduit of His saving grace (saving them from the Egyptians but also as a foreshadowing of saving us through Baptism from sin).

And this was REAL WATER (not “spiritual” water like deniers of Scripture try to assert, or 6 inch deep water as these deniers also claim, nor was it “amniotic fluid”).

This is one reason WHY it always strikes me odd that the Answers In Genesis people can be so strong in affirming Old Testament events (thank goodness in some regards concerning this), yet so unbelieving in their New Testament fulfillments (and fulfillments are always greater than the foreshadows–see Hebrews 10:1 which talks about this concept in regards to Temple sacrifice but the idea is the same). After awhile you begin to see that belief in this type of thing (i.e. Baptism, the Eucharist, etc.) is a great gift indeed and I can do nothing more than shudder and thank God for this grace as I could NEVER believe this stuff on my own. I sometimes literally weep tears of joy over this wonderful plan of God that He reveals to us.

But sometimes in our hardness of heart, we have a tough time actually believing this type of thing.

Even Abram (who was now just being called by God, as father “Abraham” meaning FATHER of a multitude) fell down laughing at God, when God told him he was going to multiply his descendants (see Genesis 17:17).

Anyway back to the Israelites and the Red Sea. This is WHY St. Paul can say . . .

1st CORINTHIANS 10:1-6 1 I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same supernatural food 4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things are warnings for us, not to desire evil as they did.

And that’s why St. John can use BABY IMAGERY concerning being “BORN” again in John 3:3-5.

JOHN 3:3-5 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said 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?” 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

So NO. An ADULT cannot be forcibly or incidentally Baptized. It would be . . . an impediment to receiving this grace.

 

[bmonk]

You and I clearly know the significance of baptism. However, the non-Catholic reduction - demotion - of baptism from Sacrament to “ordinance” appears to remove all thought that God’s grace is involved in the rite at all, as I see it. Has it really been reduced to a mere rite of passage, like a 21st birthday, whose significance thereafter quickly fades? You can enter the Christian tavern upon your baptism and ever after, but that baptism marks no more than a point in time? Seems awfully reductionist.

True–if it is not a sacrament, then why require it? In that case they are right to avoid it–not only for babies, but for everyone.

If it is a sacrament, then it offers the necessary grace to live as a Christian. And to avoid offering that grace to children, about whom Jesus taught “let them come to me,” would be wrong.

 

[bmonk]

I’m wondering if I can Baptize a fully grown man who has never been Baptized and doesn’t wish to be?

That’s not to say that he’s trying to stop the Baptism, I just mean if I wanted I could Baptize him and call him Baptized, even if he never asked for it?

No. This is why intention is so important to Catholics, even though it is not always easy to discern.

Baptism, like all the sacraments and any relationship, requires the active participation and reception of the receiver. A child, of course, cannot make such choices, so it falls to the parents, who will make many other such choices in the course of childhood–what the baby eats, wears, where to live, go to school, go on vacation, and so on.

So how do we discern the intention? By the setting (in a Church vs. amidst an oblivious crowd at a pool or lake), by the awareness of the community (and the fact that they are gathered as a community!), by what the minister wears, and other such conditions. Now, in emergencies, some of these may be lacking–say, in an auto accident, there is no time to take the fellow to a church, gather the faithful, and get the priest in full vestments. But the most essential is the agreement of the one being baptized, or of those responsible for that person.

This is also why it is wrong, say, for a grandparent to baptize a child as it were clandestinely and against the parents’ wishes: the grandparent, despite good desires, does not have the proper authority to ask for baptism, nor the right to promise that the child will be properly formed afterwards. On the other hand, if the child, now age 8 or 10, asks on her own to be baptized, and the grandparent brings her, now the child can possibly be reasonably assured of formation, and the baptism could be celebrated.

 

[dronald]

No. This is why intention is so important to Catholics, even though it is not always easy to discern.

Baptism, like all the sacraments and any relationship, requires the active participation and reception of the receiver. A child, of course, cannot make such choices, so it falls to the parents, who will make many other such choices in the course of childhood–what the baby eats, wears, where to live, go to school, go on vacation, and so on.

So how do we discern the intention? By the setting (in a Church vs. amidst an oblivious crowd at a pool or lake), by the awareness of the community (and the fact that they are gathered as a community!), by what the minister wears, and other such conditions. Now, in emergencies, some of these may be lacking–say, in an auto accident, there is no time to take the fellow to a church, gather the faithful, and get the priest in full vestments. But the most essential is the agreement of the one being baptized, or of those responsible for that person.

This is also why it is wrong, say, for a grandparent to baptize a child as it were clandestinely and against the parents’ wishes: the grandparent, despite good desires, does not have the proper authority to ask for baptism, nor the right to promise that the child will be properly formed afterwards. On the other hand, if the child, now age 8 or 10, asks on her own to be baptized, and the grandparent brings her, now the child can possibly be reasonably assured of formation, and the baptism could be celebrated.

Would you say then, that the act of Baptism would be invalid if a grandparent did it behind a parent’s back?

True–if it is not a sacrament, then why require it? In that case they are right to avoid it–not only for babies, but for everyone.

If it is a sacrament, then it offers the necessary grace to live as a Christian. And to avoid offering that grace to children, about whom Jesus taught “let them come to me,” would be wrong.

This is not true at all. We are commanded to do so, so we do it.

 

[Cathoholic]

dronald. You asked.

Would you say then, that the act of Baptism would be invalid if a grandparent did it behind a parent’s back?

The answer is yes. The Baptism would be valid. SHOULD they Baptize the infant is another issue.

“Behind the parents back” suggests you are asking if they should do this in opposition to the parents wishes.

If this is the case, probably not (see below) unless a Priest tells them otherwise such as if the grandparents can see to it that this child has a reasonable chance of giving them the faith.

You can see the Baptismal promises in the Catholic Baptismal Liturgy if you want an idea of exceptions the Priest might give (do you promise to . . . .). Even if it was against the parents wishes but the Grandparents were the custodians and raising the infant, I think the Priest would say “absolutely” for example but I don’t know this with certainty.

Catholics baptize all infants who are in immediate and grave danger of death too–even if it is a stranger’s infant if there is the opportunity.

HOW is this Baptism to be carried out?

CCC 1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate’s head while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

An alternative formula is almost exactly the same. These Traditions go back 2000 years.

CCC 1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister’s words: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again.

This should be “true and natural water” (can be ocean or fresh water. Must NOT be wine, juice, etc.).

Yet if the infant is NOT in immediate and grave danger, Christians should NOT Baptize that infant. This decision should be made by the parents or proper custodians of the infant (if possible) who make promises to God and the community they will “raise the child in the faith”.

Incidentally. If there is a Priest there, after Baptizing the infant, he can/should ALSO Confirm the infant. This is done routinely even without the danger of death in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Also, if the infant can take the Blessed Sacrament, the infant can likewise receive the Holy Eucharist after Baptism. I will just give the Confirmation teaching.

CCC 1307 The Latin tradition gives “the age of discretion” as the reference point for receiving Confirmation. But in danger of death children should be confirmed even if they have not yet attained the age of discretion.[123]

(All bold CCC above mine)

 

[dronald]

dronald. You asked.

The answer is yes. The Baptism would be valid. SHOULD they Baptize the infant is another issue.

“Behind the parents back” suggests you are asking if they should do this in opposition to the parents wishes.

If this is the case, probably not (see below) unless a Priest tells them otherwise such as if the grandparents can see to it that this child has a reasonable chance of giving them the faith.

You can see the Baptismal promises in the Catholic Baptismal Liturgy if you want an idea of exceptions the Priest might give (do you promise to . . . .). Even if it was against the parents wishes but the Grandparents were the custodians and raising the infant, I think the Priest would say “absolutely” for example but I don’t know this with certainty.

Catholics baptize all infants who are in immediate and grave danger of death too–even if it is a stranger’s infant if there is the opportunity.

HOW is this Baptism to be carried out?

CCC 1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate’s head while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

An alternative formula is almost exactly the same. These Traditions go back 2000 years.

CCC 1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister’s words: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again.

This should be “true and natural water” (can be ocean or fresh water. Must NOT be wine, juice, etc.).

Yet if the infant is NOT in immediate and grave danger, Christians should NOT Baptize that infant. This decision should be made by the parents or proper custodians of the infant (if possible) who make promises to God and the community they will “raise the child in the faith”.

Incidentally. If there is a Priest there, after Baptizing the infant, he can/should ALSO Confirm the infant. This is done routinely even without the danger of death in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Also, if the infant can take the Blessed Sacrament, the infant can likewise receive the Holy Eucharist after Baptism. I will just give the Confirmation teaching.

CCC 1307 The Latin tradition gives “the age of discretion” as the reference point for receiving Confirmation. But in danger of death children should be confirmed even if they have not yet attained the age of discretion.[123]

(All bold CCC above mine)

Isn’t any person in danger of death at any time? If Baptism is that important it should stand to reason that any grandparent should baptize the child when possible regardless of the parents beliefs. If as you say, the Baptism would be valid and wash away all sin then shouldn’t it be a priority?

To your second half, what are your views on what should have been done in this article:

m.ibtimes.co.uk/baby-dies-parents-church-hospital-emergency-baptism-525930.html

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Regarding the new article, the parents should have taken the child to the hospital and baptized the child themselves by pouring, which would not have been difficult to do.

 

[Cathoholic]

dronald. You asked:

Isn’t any person in danger of death at any time?

The “danger of death” is supposed to be immediate.

I’d have to do the “home work” to find this expounded upon and I am sorry but I didn’t do this for you (tough day–long story). If you really want this I would be willing to try to do (find authoritative quotes) it for you another day or you can accept my memory on this but I have this concept correct.

If as you say, the Baptism would be valid and wash away all sin then shouldn’t it be a priority?

Yes but only in an environment of nurturing the faith. Even Catholic parents who want their infant Baptized are to be held to this standard.

Google the Catholic Baptismal Liturgy and read the oath parents must take before they are allowed to have their baby Baptized.

(Sorry dronald. I did not do the home work on a link for the Catholic Baptismal Liturgy either but you can Google it and you will get an idea of what is expected of the parents. If they are listening to their own oath, they ought to take it quite seriously).

Your link example concerning the Russian Orthodox parents? Agonizing decision for those parents. I have no idea what I would have done (thank God that has not happened to me). They knew the importance of this Sacrament and I won’t second guess them (that is not to say the infant was condemned because it was not Baptized).

The various Eastern Orthodox who although are not in union with Rome (the Pope), still have correctly carried this Baptismal Tradition to this very day. The Eastern Orthodox are very good custodians of Tradition and have a valid Episcopal (Bishops) pedigree that goes back 2000 years just as Catholics.

CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The last portion “he himself is not bound by his sacraments” is pretty close (if I recall correctly) to an exact quote of St. Gregory of Nazienzen from the 300’s A.D. concerning what we now call “extraordinary means” of justifying grace. I’ll try to look that up for you later but it concerns Acts 10 and Cornelius et.al. regarding Baptism.

• Baptism = Ordinary Means (Certitude of efficacy associated with the Sacrament)
• He himself is not bound by his sacraments = Extraordinary Means (We are not certain of what occurs, but IF Jesus chooses to work outside of Sacramental means we call it this [extraordinary means])

So we are not saying this baby goes to eternal condemnation. We are just saying WE DO know the Sacramental realm is efficacious because we affirm what Jesus said.

 

[Cathoholic]

Also RE: the “church spokesman” in the article you cited, I am not sure why he would refer
to the man as “superstitious”.

Maybe he should take some of the blame himself.

Maybe the “church spokesman” should have said:

“Well if WE had catechized this guy better he would have known he could Baptize the baby himself without the Priest and the Dad could have done BOTH–take the infant to the hospital AND Baptize the infant himself. This one is partly on us.”

The Russian man knew the importance of the Sacrament. Perhaps not so much about its administration. As to what he knew or didn’t know about the medical situation of it all, I can not say from the article.