Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scitor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not wish to debate this topic any further but I do want to make a correction:
po18guy said:
Your communion does not have the authority to hold the baptism of children as efficacious or as bound in heaven. The Catholic, Orthodox, and numerous protestant denominations do. Time to switch thinking and denomination.
Click to expand...
We Baptize in the standard Trinitarian formula which is acceptable to the CC. I believe according to the Orthodox we’re all doing it wrong though for not being Orthodox.
 
If I recall correctly, the idea of Limbo is that of a place of perfect natural happiness, lacking only the infusion of supernatural sanctifying grace to differentiate it from heaven. It is not a place of suffering or torment, but a place of perfect natural happiness.

Further, it seems to me that quite often when I hear people talk of their actual ideas of heaven, I get the impression that they are thinking actually of a place of perfect natural happiness. In other words, their idea of heaven seems pretty much the same as the idea of Limbo.

In everyday conversation, no one seems to advert to the idea of a sharing of God’s life, that is, the infusion of supernatural grace that occurs with baptism, as the essence of heavenly life. But the whole idea of original sin, and baptism as an essential sacrament for the removal of original sin and the infusion of sanctifying grace, is the point of the discussion.
 
dronald said:
We Baptize in the standard Trinitarian formula which is acceptable to the CC. I believe according to the Orthodox we’re all doing it wrong though for not being Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Good! But, children are left out, and God is silent on the matter if the principle of the “believer’s baptism” is strictly adhered to. Certainly you have heard of the paralytic who was forgiven and healed by the faith of his friends who loved him enough to lower him through the ceiling to our Lord (Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:17-26). There is no clear scriptural evidence that he himself had faith, or even that he had repented - yet he was both forgiven and healed. Here, we cannot insert wishful thinking or fill in the missing information, but rather must go by that which the inspired writer recorded.

There is solid evidence that the paralytic was both forgiven and healed by the faith of his friends. This demonstrates a principle by which God’s grace flows. That identical principle occurs when parents have their children baptized. Parents, with faith and out of love of their child, present that child before the Lord, seeking both forgiveness of and healing from the effects of original sin. By contrast, the “believer’s baptism” is an idea that appeared much later in Christianity, and is based solely upon the private interpretation of scripture alone, disregarding the Apostolic Tradition (practice of the Apostles) that was handed down in the Church.
 
Scitor said:
This is were we separate a bit. I do not believe that anyone who has truly accepted Christ can choose to walk away. I do not think we give enough credit to God or truly understand the power of God when he calls one to the family (i.e. when one is saved).

This is a totally different topic, but somewhat related. When you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, you lose a bit of your “free will.” A very simple example of this would be wanted something you know is forbidden, getting within in inches of taking it, and at the last minute you just can’t bring your self to take it.

So your salvation is not something you can walk away from. When one is saved he truly is a changed person.
Click to expand...
We believe that salvation does not reduce free will, but augments it. St. Paul, in Romans, speaks of how we try to do the good, but find a law of sin in our members that keeps us from doing good. Jesus came to set us free (John 8:31-36).

I agree that conversion changes us–but we are still free to turn away from God.
 
Scitor said:
YADA…please read Galatians and Ephesians. Salvation is a gift from God and baptism is not required.

As far as “this accepting Christ thing,” are you saying that Catholics do not need to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior? That just by being born Catholic, being baptized as an infant, and going to CCE class it’s a done deal you are going to Heaven? I would argue that for all Christians, no matter the religion, there comes a point in ones life they make a decision to accept that Christ is Lord or he is not. I would say that there will be many Catholics that have been falsely lead to believing they will get to heaven purely because they are Catholic and because they followed/did certain acts/held to certain traditions. Unless their is relationship with Christ there can be no salvation. . . .
Click to expand...
But what of John 3:3,5? 'Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?” Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." ’

Why would Jesus add “being born of water” to “being born from above/again”?

I agree that we need the relationship with God–trying to keep the commandments without loving is foolishness. But if trying to be saved simply by the sacraments is inadequate, what of a person who accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior, without doing anything else, such as showing the effects of that choice in his life?

Would not such a person want to join the People of God, the Body of Christ? So making that choice would lead to baptism, if it has not yet been received,
 
dronald said:
Honestly… The Catholic Church should just make a declaration from the seat of Peter once and for all on what happens to unbaptized babies and stillborn children then call it a night.

This is obviously a very important topic and the CC won’t touch it for obvious reasons. It needs to happen.
Click to expand...
  1. We are not authorized to make such a pronouncement until the Spirit indicates consensus and the need to do so. Contrary to what many (especially Protestants) believe, we do not make pronouncements at will.
  2. It strikes me that this question is rather like “Will many be saved?” which Jesus does not answer–but rather he tells us what we should do to be saved. That is, if Jesus tells us many will be saved, then it’s easy, so why try hard? If he tells us few will be saved, then we likely won’t make it anyway–so why try hard? So that answer doesn’t help us either way.
Must children be baptized to be saved? If yes–then children who die before baptism may lead to the family despairing. If no–then children will not be brought for baptism, and will not gain the graces to live and grow as Christians. So the answer does not help us share the graces of baptism.
 
bmonk said:
Must children be baptized to be saved? If yes–then children who die before baptism may lead to the family despairing. If no–then children will not be brought for baptism, and will not gain the graces to live and grow as Christians. So the answer does not help us share the graces of baptism.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Infant baptism in the Catholic Church is just about the strongest demonstration of salvation without works that there could possibly be.
The infant can do nothing, nor does the infant need to do anything, in order to be “saved”. The church freely supplies all that’s necessary, including the water, the faith, and the grace, while the infant truly becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit, an adopted child of God, a member of the Church, and co-heir with Jesus Christ … simply because God desires all to be saved. The Catholic sacrament of Confirmation later allows each person to make the declaration of faith that was made for them at baptism;In Confirmation.

God Bless
onenow1:coffee:
 
Excellent point! 👍

As well, it seems that non-Catholics are always decrying what they see as Catholic salvation by works. Yet, in their own reduction of baptism from Sacrament to mere “ordinance” (or 'law"), are they not attempting part of their salvation via “works of the law”? I know it is not the Mosaic law, but still, ordinances are ordinances and Sacraments are Sacraments.
 
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?
 
I sense an attempted trap. You called pastor, didn’t you?

Let’s compare and contrast here: You firmly believe in your less than 500 year old belief - even though there is no record that any Christian on earth did so for the first 1,500 years of the Church. East or west. The “believer’s baptism” traces only back to the Anabaptists and then stops dead. Do you see a potential problem here?

As well, you have once again (and again and again and again) completely ignored the fact that the Catholic Church has the authority to hold infant baptism bound on earth and in heaven. Please read and reflect on Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.

Thus, if you are not Catholic, you are free to follow your own rules.
 
dronald said:
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?
Click to expand...
You could do that, but you would be wrong. It is necessary for their to be at least implicit intention in the case of baptism of adults. Otherwise, the baptism is invalid.

If an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, the form to be used should be: “If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee.” (ST III, 68, 7)
newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm

Infants have sin without their consent so their consent is not necessary for their salvation. However, a grown man has sinned wilfully and must repent willfully.
 
po18guy said:
I sense an attempted trap. You called pastor, didn’t you?

Let’s compare and contrast here: You firmly believe in your less than 500 year old belief - even though there is no record that any Christian on earth did so for the first 1,500 years of the Church. East or west. The “believer’s baptism” traces only back to the Anabaptists and then stops dead. Do you see a potential problem here?

As well, you have once again (and again and again and again) completely ignored the fact that the Catholic Church has the authority to hold infant baptism bound on earth and in heaven. Please read and reflect on Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.

Thus, if you are not Catholic, you are free to follow your own rules.
Click to expand...
Nope.
QNDNNDQDCE said:
You could do that, but you would be wrong. It is necessary for their to be at least implicit intention in the case of baptism of adults. Otherwise, the baptism is invalid.

If an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, the form to be used should be: “If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee.” (ST III, 68, 7)
newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm

Infants have sin without their consent so their consent is not necessary for their salvation. However, a grown man has sinned wilfully and must repent willfully.
Click to expand...
Ah, this makes sense. Thank you.
 
po18guy said:
Well…?
Click to expand...
If you look at the post he was responding to, it is clear that his “nope” is a denial that his post was a trap and that he had called his pastor. I don’t think his question (a silly question, but a good one) merited the response you gave it.
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
If you look at the post he was responding to, it is clear that his “nope” is a denial that his post was a trap and that he had called his pastor. I don’t think his question (a silly question, but a good one) merited the response you gave it.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top