Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[FathersKnowBest]

When someone receives communion, they are supposed to be in a state of grace. They might in fact be in a state of mortal sin. There is no way for an external observer to verify this. Perhaps if God afterward smites them with lightening, we would have some grounds for guessing that they ought to have abstained, but that seems to be a rare occurence. On the other hand, babies are incapable of sinning because they lack the use of reason. You don’t think children sin in the womb, do you? If they do not need baptism and get an automatic ticket to heaven as some suppose, then murdering them objectively guaruntees their salvation.

I wouldn’t use this argument either.
Otherwise, killing a newly-baptized infant would be beneficial for that infant.

 

[ahs]

I wouldn’t use this argument either.
Otherwise, killing a newly-baptized infant would be beneficial for that infant.

Perhaps…except that God commanded us not to kill the innocent.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I wouldn’t use this argument either.
Otherwise, killing a newly-baptized infant would be beneficial for that infant.

It is not exactly the same because Catholics believe that baptism in necessary. Even if baptism was administered, we could have even a slight dout about the validity of the sacrament for the various reasons. Maybe the words were incorrect and we hallucinated the correct formula. Unlikely, but physically possible. For that reason, we cannot have the same objective 100% assurance that those who assume babies are automatically saved have. We have 99.99999999% assurance, but invalid baptism is a possibility.

If you believe babies automatically gonto heaven, then it their abortion should be viewed as a mercy because the type of parents that would abort their children are not the kind that are likely to raise godly children. They would probably just grownup to be sinners like their parents. While it is an act of brutality on the part of the parents, it is no real injustice to the aborted infants. I have seen Evangelicals with this mentality, who agreed abortion was immoral but did not feel strongly about opposing it since it is a guaranteed free trip to heaven.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Perhaps…except that God commanded us not to kill the innocent.

It is not exactly the same because Catholics believe that baptism in necessary. Even if baptism was administered, we could have even a slight dout about the validity of the sacrament for the various reasons. Maybe the words were incorrect and we hallucinated the correct formula. Unlikely, but physically possible. For that reason, we cannot have the same objective 100% assurance that those who assume babies are automatically saved have. We have 99.99999999% assurance, but invalid baptism is a possibility.

If you believe babies automatically gonto heaven, then it their abortion should be viewed as a mercy because the type of parents that would abort their children are not the kind that are likely to raise godly children. They would probably just grownup to be sinners like their parents. While it is an act of brutality on the part of the parents, it is no real injustice to the aborted infants. I have seen Evangelicals with this mentality, who agreed abortion was immoral but did not feel strongly about opposing it since it is a guaranteed free trip to heaven.

My point is that the answer given by ahs could also be applied to the argument given by QNDNNDQDCE.

If you believe baptism is not required, is abortion a mercy?
“Perhaps…except that God commanded us not to kill the innocent.”

If you believe that baptism is efficacious in removing all sin, would it be a mercy to kill a newly baptized baby?
Same answer: “Perhaps…except that God commanded us not to kill the innocent.”

So, while I agree that baptism DOES remove all sin and IS (ordinarily) necessary, I don’t think this argument is valid.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The question is not so much whether we should murder infants (no one says that), but whether we should rejoice in an infant’s murder with respect to the infant considered in isolation because we know he is in heaven.

 

[ahs]

My point is that the answer given by ahs could also be applied to the argument given by QNDNNDQDCE.

If you believe baptism is not required, is abortion a mercy?
“Perhaps…except that God commanded us not to kill the innocent.”

If you believe that baptism is efficacious in removing all sin, would it be a mercy to kill a newly baptized baby?
Same answer: “Perhaps…except that God commanded us not to kill the innocent.”

So, while I agree that baptism DOES remove all sin and IS (ordinarily) necessary, I don’t think this argument is valid.

I have to agree with this.

 

[JonNC]

It is possible that there are Catholics who mistakenly believe that, but it is also possible you have misunderstood them. First, Catholic teaching is that baptism removes all sin, original and actual. This is not just Catholic teaching. It is also the traditional Protestant teaching. Here are some quotations from definitive Reformed and Lutheran confessions.

The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised [including the remission of sins; see 28.1] is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time. (Westminster Confession of Faith 28.6)

What does Baptism give or profit?
Answer: It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare. (Luther’s Small Catechism 4.5-6)

It is also the traditional Protestant understanding that baptism is to be administered to the infants of believers.

Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized. (WCF 28.4)

Of Baptism they [the Lutherans] teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism. (Augsburg Confession 9.1-3)

This is consonant with the teaching of St. Peter (the first pope!).

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (Acts 2:38-39)

One reason for your misconception about Catholic teaching is you’re assuming that you mean the same thing when you say “getting saved” as Catholics (or others) mean when they speak about salvation. Salvation is contingent on perseverance. Lutherans and Catholics agree that it is necessary to persevere in faith to the end and admit that it is possible to fall away from grace. Calvinists do not believe a true Christian can fall away, but they say that all those truly regenerate will exhibit final perseverance (even if it is not visible to outside observers). The belief that it is impossible to fall away from grace after conversion no matter what is often referred to (pejoratively) as “once saved, always saved” (OSAS). You seem to be laboring under the misconception that Catholics believe in OSAS when in fact neither Catholics nor most Protestants believe this.

Now you said baptism is just a ritual. If it is just an empty ritual, why did Christ institute it (Matthew 28:19)? What is its significance to you?

Regarding your portrayal of Lutheran belief surrounding baptism, you are correct.

Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I have to agree with this.

If you scroll back a little, you will see I joined in on that argument because Dr. Onald proposed that we could kill people after they received the Eucharist. My argument is that there is no objective assurance that one receiving the Eucharist is in a state of grace and that even for baptism, there is not absolute assurance, since there is an unlikely possibility of invalidity.

For the record, I do not condone murdering anyone, regardless of their sanctity.

Regarding your portrayal of Lutheran belief surrounding baptism, you are correct.

Thanks!

 

[JonNC]

=lilymc;11465339]I have a few points in response to all that.

1. You’ve managed to employ two logical fallacies already, and we’re just getting started. Argumentum ad populum, or the Bandwagon Approach. “Look - all these churches are doing it, so it’s gotta be true!” Sorry, but that doesn’t prove much. By the way, I think it’s interesting that the churches that still do infant baptism are pretty much all the very traditional, religious or “churchy” churches. Why is that not surprising?

That isn’t what he was doing at all. He was showing that, during the Reformation era, Lutherans and Anglicans continued in the historic, Biblical and traditional practice of Baptizing infants.

1. Show me what the bible says. It may hold weight for you guys, but for me, the Catechism, or the “Lutheran confession” or what some deacon thinks doesn’t matter. The things that matter to me are what the bible says, what my God-given intuition tells me, and of course, what God says. One doesn’t need to go to a priest for that. You can read the bible, pray, seek God…There’s no need to go to a priest or dusty old church book.

The Lutheran confessions don’t need to be in quotes because they really exist.
You seem to be under the impression that the Lutheran confessions were written without regard scripture. In fact, we understand them to be accountable to scripture, and subject to it. We are, after all, sola scripturist.

Jon

 

[dronald]

When someone receives communion, they are supposed to be in a state of grace. They might in fact be in a state of mortal sin. There is no way for an external observer to verify this. Perhaps if God afterward smites them with lightening, we would have some grounds for guessing that they ought to have abstained, but that seems to be a rare occurence. On the other hand, babies are incapable of sinning because they lack the use of reason. You don’t think children sin in the womb, do you? If they do not need baptism and get an automatic ticket to heaven as some suppose, then murdering them objectively guaruntees their salvation.

Your argument would mean that if we could be 100% certain that someone was in a state of grace, it would make sense to kill them.

The reason we don’t abort babies is because murder is wrong, just like you wouldn’t murder one who is in a state of grace.

Unless you’re saying the only reason you wouldn’t kill someone in a state of grace is because you’re unsure if they really are? I know you’re not saying that, but it’s only reasonable when compared to your extremism that we may as well abort babies if Baptism is a symbol.

Let’s not exaggerate our arguments. Baptists and Evangelicals are linked in arms over the issue of abortion with Catholics.

 

[dskysmine]

What a silly argument. Why would it be bad to kill someone immediately after taking the Eucharist? Doesn’t one have to be in a state of grace and we can just send them to Heaven? This argument makes no sense.

I also take issue with this. When someone takes a break and gets 12 replies (long ones too) do you understand how hard it is to get back to everyone?

I’ve been there many times; it’s not easy being a Protestant here.

You seem to have missed what argumentum ad absurdum means.
I wasn’t using it against you, but the other “philosopher” guy.
An argumentum ad absurdum is an argument “to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance”.

I didn’t make the case that my argument was good… it wasn’t. I was trying to show that if Baptists would follow to the end their argument that Baptism isn’t necessary they would know that all the aborted babies would be in Heaven, and hence have no counter argument against abortion (being also for the free will of people to choose Jesus as their personal Saviour, they can’t really argument that people that get pregnant “have” to take their term to carriage if they have not yet chosen Jesus as their personal Saviour).
I am not saying that Baptists should support, or engage in abortions, I am saying that they shouldn’t (in case my absurd argument stands) care that non Baptists get abortions.

But if you want to follow that path, then tell me, what do you believe happens to children that get aborted?

Your argument doesn’t apply to Catholics because Catholics believe that we must die with Sanctifying Grace, and in the Catholic Church we can only aspire to be in Sanctifying Grace (lest anyone boast, where have I heard that before?).
As Saint Joan of Arc said when asked if she was in Sanctifying Grace:
“Do you know whether or not you are in God’s grace?”
“If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest creature in the world if I knew I were not in His grace.”

God bless,
D.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Your argument would mean that if we could be 100% certain that someone was in a state of grace, it would make sense to kill them.

The reason we don’t abort babies is because murder is wrong, just like you wouldn’t murder one who is in a state of grace.

Unless you’re saying the only reason you wouldn’t kill someone in a state of grace is because you’re unsure if they really are? I know you’re not saying that, but it’s only reasonable when compared to your extremism that we may as well abort babies if Baptism is a symbol.

Let’s not exaggerate our arguments. Baptists and Evangelicals are linked in arms over the issue of abortion with Catholics.

I agree that that particular argument he made was irrational.

EDIT: Just saw Q’s last post. Disregard this, I misunderstood him.

 

[dronald]

You seem to have missed what argumentum ad absurdum means.
I wasn’t using it against you, but the other “philosopher” guy.
An argumentum ad absurdum is an argument “to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance”.

I didn’t make the case that my argument was good… it wasn’t. I was trying to show that if Baptists would follow to the end their argument that Baptism isn’t necessary they would know that all the aborted babies would be in Heaven, and hence have no counter argument against abortion (being also for the free will of people to choose Jesus as their personal Saviour, they can’t really argument that people that get pregnant “have” to take their term to carriage if they have not yet chosen Jesus as their personal Saviour).
I am not saying that Baptists should support, or engage in abortions, I am saying that they shouldn’t (in case my absurd argument stands) care that non Baptists get abortions.

But if you want to follow that path, then tell me, what do you believe happens to children that get aborted?

Your argument doesn’t apply to Catholics because Catholics believe that we must die with Sanctifying Grace, and in the Catholic Church we can only aspire to be in Sanctifying Grace (lest anyone boast, where have I heard that before?).
As Saint Joan of Arc said when asked if she was in Sanctifying Grace:
“Do you know whether or not you are in God’s grace?”
“If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest creature in the world if I knew I were not in His grace.”

God bless,
D.

What you’re saying doesn’t at all address what I just posted. You’re stating that if Baptists do believe that babies do not need to be baptized at birth, then a Baptist from a Baptists perspective has no reason to be against abortion.

I then used an analogy that killing anyone would be just fine if you knew that they were in a state of grace, and the only reason you wouldn’t do so is because you have no way of knowing for sure.

However, such an argument is one I know you don’t support because you believe in, “Thou shalt not murder” and so do I. So we don’t kill babies and we wouldn’t kill someone even if we knew they were guaranteed to go to Heaven.

And yes, I believe babies who are aborted or miscarried go to Heaven. You should check out my split thread and give your two cents. A woman even posted (Catholic) saying she’s sure her baby is in Heaven, and was assured by her Priest.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=842418

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Your argument would mean that if we could be 100% certain that someone was in a state of grace, it would make sense to kill them.

The reason we don’t abort babies is because murder is wrong, just like you wouldn’t murder one who is in a state of grace.

Unless you’re saying the only reason you wouldn’t kill someone in a state of grace is because you’re unsure if they really are? I know you’re not saying that, but it’s only reasonable when compared to your extremism that we may as well abort babies if Baptism is a symbol.

Let’s not exaggerate our arguments. Baptists and Evangelicals are linked in arms over the issue of abortion with Catholics.

I wasn’t the one who asked, “why not murder infants?” I was the one who disputed your Eucharist argument because it is not a comparable situation. I never proposed that anyone ought to condone murder. However, if you believe that infants are assured of salvation with a 100% objective probability, we can rejoice in their murder because despite the fact that is a gravely evil act on the part of the murderer, we can rejoice that the child is definitely in heaven. That fact considered in isolation is a positive thing. In the case of abortion, likely the person having the abortion is already commiting grave sins anyway and the child likely would have fallen into a life of sin as well. So, abortion positively impacts the child’s fate considered in isolation. So abortion would be bad and evil and all that, but we could say that aborted infants really luck out.

 

[dskysmine]

What you’re saying doesn’t at all address what I just posted. You’re stating that if Baptists do believe that babies do not need to be baptized at birth, then a Baptist from a Baptists perspective has no reason to be against abortion.

I then used an analogy that killing anyone would be just fine if you knew that they were in a state of grace, and the only reason you wouldn’t do so is because you have no way of knowing for sure.

Your analogy depended on the Catholics knowing if they are in the State of Sanctifying Grace, which I already demonstrated is not tenable.
Your analogy also falls on the fact that you were defending the aggressor’s position (killing someone that arguably is in Sanctifying Grace), and not the consequence (going to Heaven), I was defending the consequence of abortion (baby going to Heaven), not the decision of babies being aborted (which most of the time are done after the sin of fornication or using contraceptives that don’t work 100%).

However, such an argument is one I know you don’t support because you believe in, “Thou shalt not murder” and so do I. So we don’t kill babies and we wouldn’t kill someone even if we knew they were guaranteed to go to Heaven.

And yes, I believe babies who are aborted or miscarried go to Heaven. You should check out my split thread and give your two cents. A woman even posted (Catholic) saying she’s sure her baby is in Heaven, and was assured by her Priest.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=842418

I am not going to debate what some random lady and some random priest have said. They do not represent the authority of the Holy Catholic Church.

You seem to not have understood the context of this debate…
The Holy Catholic Church isn’t telling its flock “If you get baptized you are assured to go to Heaven”.
The King of Kings Jesus Christ has said that those who are not born again of the Water and Spirit cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Most Holy Catholic Church, as His wife and submissive to Him has made sure to transmit His request to Her children.
And as with Baptism, She transmitted all the other Sacraments, that His Most Holy Grace can flow to His children. As ordered by Him, and as was always since the beginning of the Church.
Although the Church doesn’t teach that aborted babies go to Heaven, She worries for their salvation and also about the salvation of the people who commit this most grievous murder, as She was indebted with the care for the whole world.

According to your proposition then, what is the reason that Baptists stay outside abortion clinics? Is it because of worry for the babies (who apparently go to Heaven so there is nothing to worry about) or the people who commit them?
If it is about the people that commit them how do you weight it with your maximum that accepting the Truth one must accept Jesus as their personal Savior and many people who commit abortion don’t think the same? I thought the State (according to Baptists) shouldn’t interfere with religion…

God bless,
D.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I wasn’t the one who asked, “why not murder infants?” I was the one who disputed your Eucharist argument because it is not a comparable situation. I never proposed that anyone ought to condone murder. However, if you believe that infants are assured of salvation with a 100% objective probability, we can rejoice in their murder because despite the fact that is a gravely evil act on the part of the murderer, we can rejoice that the child is definitely in heaven. That fact considered in isolation is a positive thing. In the case of abortion, likely the person having the abortion is already commiting grave sins anyway and the child likely would have fallen into a life of sin as well. So, abortion positively impacts the child’s fate considered in isolation. So abortion would be bad and evil and all that, but we could say that aborted infants really luck out.

I have to side with dronald on this one. There is no cause for rejoicing in the murderous loss of life, even if we know they are going to heaven, even if they are Baptist babies.

The argument for Infant Baptism does not really hinge on the danger of a baby dying without baptism, although that IS a consideration. It hinges on the importance of opening the child’s soul to Sanctifying grace as early as possible, and initiating that child into the Body of Christ, and as was said often enough already, like circumcision was/is practiced by the Jews on Infants. What responsible parent would want their child to remain in the kingdom of death and Satan, when Sacramental Baptism would bring that child into the Kingdom of God? How is it responsible for a parent to decide to “let the child decide” when they are old enough? The only reason a responsible parent would not baptize their infant child is because they don’t believe in Sacramental Baptism. That is the real problem. All of the main line Protestant churches believe in Sacramental Baptism, and therefore have no problem with infant baptism. It is the fundamentalist/evangelical/SBC position that does.

Therefore, IMHO, this whole nasty abortion argument is a dead end. In fact Catholics believe pretty much the same as Baptists when it comes to unbaptized babies dying. Although Catholics don’t teach that they undoubtedly go to heaven, they teach that GOD willing, they do.

 

[dronald]

I wasn’t the one who asked, “why not murder infants?” I was the one who disputed your Eucharist argument because it is not a comparable situation. I never proposed that anyone ought to condone murder. However, if you believe that infants are assured of salvation with a 100% objective probability, we can rejoice in their murder because despite the fact that is a gravely evil act on the part of the murderer, we can rejoice that the child is definitely in heaven. That fact considered in isolation is a positive thing. In the case of abortion, likely the person having the abortion is already commiting grave sins anyway and the child likely would have fallen into a life of sin as well. So, abortion positively impacts the child’s fate considered in isolation. So abortion would be bad and evil and all that, but we could say that aborted infants really luck out.

Again, your hypothetical examples are far too extreme. I know you’re speaking how an Evangelical “might as well think” but you came up with a terrible analogy again.

You said that the parent was probably living in a life of sin, therefore the child would probably be sinful too. This is not true at all, rather the aborted child could have grown up to be a great person who leads others to Christ. It’s also likely that the one committing the abortion is extremely misguided and not such an awful sinner.

I understand your irony in taking the opposing position and trying to make it sound like it would make sense for Evangelicals to abort babies, but you’re even refuted by the fact that Evangelicals are some of the most outspoken against abortion.

As for rejoicing that an aborted baby is in Heaven? Yes, I am comforted that no infant who was aborted or miscarried is destined to burn in hell for all of eternity. Perhaps you believe the child will go to some type of limbo, but you honestly don’t have any support that this is an official Catholic belief.

 

[dronald]

I am not going to debate what some random lady and some random priest have said. They do not represent the authority of the Holy Catholic Church.

Tell that to her, it’s only her child that by no fault of hers was miscarried.

 

[dskysmine]

Tell that to her, it’s only her child that by no fault of hers was miscarried.

Why are you blaming “QNDNNDQDCE” for an argument I raised?

And why don’t you answer my whole comment instead of diverting the topic?

 

[dskysmine]

I have to side with dronald on this one. There is no cause for rejoicing in the murderous loss of life, even if we know they are going to heaven, even if they are Baptist babies.

The argument for Infant Baptism does not really hinge on the danger of a baby dying without baptism, although that IS a consideration. It hinges on the importance of opening the child’s soul to Sanctifying grace as early as possible, and initiating that child into the Body of Christ, and as was said often enough already, like circumcision was/is practiced by the Jews on Infants. What responsible parent would want their child to remain in the kingdom of death and Satan, when Sacramental Baptism would bring that child into the Kingdom of God? How is it responsible for a parent to decide to “let the child decide” when they are old enough? The only reason a responsible parent would not baptize their infant child is because they don’t believe in Sacramental Baptism. That is the real problem. All of the main line Protestant churches believe in Sacramental Baptism, and therefore have no problem with infant baptism. It is the fundamentalist/evangelical/SBC position that does.

Therefore, IMHO, this whole nasty abortion argument is a dead end. In fact Catholics believe pretty much the same as Baptists when it comes to unbaptized babies dying. Although Catholics don’t teach that they undoubtedly go to heaven, they teach that GOD willing, they do.

The problem with the Baptist position is they think THEY know what the right interpretation is. I am not saying their opposition to abortion is wrong, I am saying that it seems based on faulty logic based on their other beliefs, like assurance of salvation, and division between state and church …
The abortion argument was one I raised, as an absurd argument against their faulty logic, not because it is a “good” argument.
I already explained this and it wasn’t “QNDNNDQDCE” that raised it.

God bless,
D.