infant baptism

[ziapueblo]

I’ve been in a discussion with a protestant friend about infant baptism and “age of accountability.” He asked what happens if an infant dies before he/she is baptized? Does the infant go to hell? Does a child who has never been baptized go to hell? I am not sure on the Church’s teaching on this. Can someone help me with this question? How can I address to this person the necessity for infant baptize? He might take it as me saying “infants need to be baptized, but if they die before then it’s ok God will have mercy on them.” His impression will then be that infant baptism is ridiculous. Thanks for the help.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Church teaches that one who dies while they are in training for Baptism still receives a “Baptism of Desire” and enjoys the full benefits of Baptism.

I would assume the same would apply to a baby that was due to be baptized shortly, but dies beforehand.

 

[NotWorthy]

Is your friend aware that the New Covenant Church, since the first century has taught that Baptism is necessary and that infant Baptism has been practiced by the Church since Apostolic times (the 1st century)?

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Well, about the one thing I think is pretty universally agreed on is that God is merciful and all we can do is entrust the infant to
God.

I don’t believe the Bible supports universal justification for all infants. When the Hebrews were given the promised land the command was to kill all, including the infants. Clearly the infants were not saved individuals who would at some later time lose their salvation. But that’s making conclusions where things aren’t absolutely stated and we probably shouldn’t go too far in those things.

In any case, if baptizing infants is rediculous, then the question must be asked, why did God baptize the infants in the very first baptism recorded in the Bible? That is the baptism into Moses that the nation of Israel received as it crossed the Red Sea.

Infants were inculded. Deut 1:39

And interestingly the mode of the first baptism was by rain. It is said to be poured on them but of course a rain could also be considered sprinkling. What it is not is immersion. Of course there was an immersion, that was the Egyptian army. Was the immersion of the Egyptian army an outward sign of an inner change in the Egyptians?

If you are discussing with a dispensationalist, the usually response is all of that means nothing since it did not happen in the New Testament. But even for a dispensationalist, some things should stand. For instance the meaning of the word baptism is clearly being used, in the New Testament for a pouring or sprinkling of water, and it is being done to an entire nation, including all ages. Now in the New Testament we are also told to baptize nations, why then, when scripture does not exclude any age of person should we withold from some group of people based on their age?

It should probably be worth noting in the baptism unto Moses, that was for those who were to receive the promised land. Yet, the adults, who the person you are discussing with would see as the people having faith, the adults turned from God to false gods, and so they perished in the wilderness. It was actually the infants, carried in the arms of their parents while they were baptized who received the promise.

No reason to believe that an infant, carried in the arms of it’s parents as it receives baptism today does not receive the promise of heaven.

JJ

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I’ve been in a discussion with a protestant friend about infant baptism and “age of accountability.” He asked what happens if an infant dies before he/she is baptized? Does the infant go to hell? Does a child who has never been baptized go to hell? I am not sure on the Church’s teaching on this.

From the Catechism:

1261
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Can someone help me with this question? How can I address to this person the necessity for infant baptize? He might take it as me saying “infants need to be baptized, but if they die before then it’s ok God will have mercy on them.” His impression will then be that infant baptism is ridiculous. Thanks for the help.

Also from the Catechism:
**
1250
Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251
Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252
The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53**

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I’ve been in a discussion with a protestant friend about infant baptism and “age of accountability.” He asked what happens if an infant dies before he/she is baptized? Does the infant go to hell? Does a child who has never been baptized go to hell? I am not sure on the Church’s teaching on this. Can someone help me with this question? How can I address to this person the necessity for infant baptize? He might take it as me saying “infants need to be baptized, but if they die before then it’s ok God will have mercy on them.” His impression will then be that infant baptism is ridiculous. Thanks for the help.

The same could be asked of an infant who dies before they reach the “age of accountability”. Will a child who dies before reaching such an age and is unable call on Jesus as their, “personal Lord and Savior” go to hell? Also what is the “age of accountability”? 5, 7, 8 years of age? Who decides? I wonder because I have never seen this phrase mentioned in the Bible nor have I ever read in the Bible where it lays down for us what age exactly is the age of accountability. This sounds like one of those nasty traditions that we need so desperately to stat away from. Tsk Tsk. :tsktsk:

Now to the question: God owes it to no one to save them, not even an unbaptized infant. The infant has no claim against God and It would be no injustice on God’s part to send an unbaptized infant into eternal separation from Him. It is true that God is a just God and that this may not sound fair by our standards of fairness but Divine justice does not equate to the human idea of fairness. And it is here that the Church considers God’s will. We are told that His will is that all be saved, and that none be lost. We then hope that God will, out of His duty to Himself and His will to see all saved, make some kind of provision for unbaptized infants. Our hope is placed in a God who is merciful as well as just,and that out of His mercy He will provide for the salvation of unbaptized infants. While we may hope, we do not know and it is because of this that the Church gives the answer she does in the Catechism.

1261
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

God bless

 

[SyCarl]

Many Protestant churches to practice infant baptism, even if it is viewed as not absolutley necessary for salvation. We baptize because Jesus told us to. We baptize infants because it is the sign and seal of the New Covenant. The sign and seal of the Old Covenant was circumcision and it was administered to infants. When Peter at Pentecost said to repent and be baptized. He also said that the promise was to them and their children. His audience was Jewish and they would well understand this reference as corresponding to the old practice. It wouldnaturally be assumed that infants be baptized as they had been circumsicised. Since the Old Covenant sign and seal was given to children and no change is referred to in the New Covenant, we are to continue to baptize children.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’ve been in a discussion with a protestant friend about infant baptism and “age of accountability.” He asked what happens if an infant dies before he/she is baptized? Does the infant go to hell? Does a child who has never been baptized go to hell? I am not sure on the Church’s teaching on this. Can someone help me with this question? How can I address to this person the necessity for infant baptize? He might take it as me saying “infants need to be baptized, but if they die before then it’s ok God will have mercy on them.” His impression will then be that infant baptism is ridiculous. Thanks for the help.

The Church teaching is that “we don’t know what happens to infants who die without Baptism.” We can only **hope **that there might be a way for them to enter Heaven. God provided a way for them to be assured of Heaven, BAPTISM. If we choose not to have our child Baptized, we will answer to God for that. So not it would not be correct to assert that God’s mercy will provide, we can only hope that it might provide a way.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The Church teaches that one who dies while they are in training for Baptism still receives a “Baptism of Desire” and enjoys the full benefits of Baptism.

I would assume the same would apply to a baby that was due to be baptized shortly, but dies beforehand.

No, Baptism of Deasire does not apply to infants. Only member of the Order of Catechumens, meaning those who have made their desire for Baptism known during the Rite of Acceptance are treated in this manner.

 

[Seatuck]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

1. Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).

The Conclusion reads:
103. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, Baptism of Deasire does not apply to infants. Only member of the Order of Catechumens, meaning those who have made their desire for Baptism known during the Rite of Acceptance are treated in this manner.

So if a baby is due to be baptized due to a parent’s faith, and those parents had intended to baptize their infant, but got into an accident on the way to the Christening, how is this different then a catechumate dying in the same accident?

The catechumate receives a baptism of desire, but the baby doesn’t?

 

[JTBT]

The catechumate receives a baptism of desire, but the baby doesn’t?

wouldn’t an infant fall into “Though no fault of their own” category, just like the unevangelized?
Roman Catholic:

The same could be asked of an infant who dies before they reach the “age of accountability”. Will a child who dies before reaching such an age and is unable call on Jesus as their, “personal Lord and Savior” go to hell? Also what is the “age of accountability”? 5, 7, 8 years of age?

The term “age of accountability” is not mentioned in the Bible, but neither is the term “Trinity”.
The age of accountability, could also be called an age of reason, which will differ from person to person, when someone reaches this age they understand that they are a sinner and in need of a savior. As a Catholic you may say it is the age that a child goes into the confirmation process.

 

[ziapueblo]

The term “age of accountability” is not mentioned in the Bible, but neither is the term “Trinity”.
The age of accountability, could also be called an age of reason, which will differ from person to person, when someone reaches this age they understand that they are a sinner and in need of a savior. As a Catholic you may say it is the age that a child goes into the confirmation process.

There are many references to the Trinity in Scripture even though the word “Trinity” is not used. I do not see where “age of accountability” or “age of reason” is alluded to. However, you being a non-Catholic, I can see your parallel between the sacrament of confirmation and age of reason.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

The term “age of accountability” is not mentioned in the Bible, but neither is the term “Trinity”.

The fact that the term “Trinity” and the phrase “Age of Accountability” are not in the Bible should be much more concerning to you than they are to me.

The age of accountability, could also be called an age of reason, which will differ from person to person, when someone reaches this age they understand that they are a sinner and in need of a savior.

What is the age though? Who establishes it? A congregation? The child? The child’s parents? Also at what age does someone properly “understand that they are a sinner and in need of a savior”. And who decides that they have properly understood this? Again, a congregation? The child? The child’s parents? I would certainly argue that an 8 year, on average, would not fully understand this. Some people don’t understand this until later in their lives and still more never come to an understanding of it, have these people never reached their age of reason?

Also where did you get this definition of the age of reason from? That the age of reason is when, “they will understand that they are a sinner and in need of a savior”? Where does this come from? Is there a Book, chapter and verse in the Bible that you can point me to that will help me in figuring out what this age is so (if I were a non-Catholic Christian) I could have my child baptized and not just rely on your word that my son will be doing it at the right age?

God bless

 

[ziapueblo]

When talking with my friend about infant baptism I said that it has been a practice since the early Church. I quoted some of the early Church Fathers writings. Some of these quotes had the term catholic in them such as the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. Then she sent me this email:

You keep doing this even though you know better—I guess you think that if you keep asserting this, eventually people will just accept it. This is not my opinion only—this is history—factual history.

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until AFTER Constantine began the merger of the early Christian church with the Roman Army in the 3RD Century. Hint: ROMAN Catholic Church----ROMAN Army. The Roman Catholic Church and the Early Church are two distinct entities—the symbiosis with the Roman way of doing and thinking changed everything irrevocably—and not necessarily for the better I might add.

Everything that Jesus taught and preached was diametrically opposed to the Roman Army and their way of doing things.That’s why they wanted Him out of the way. It wasn’t the Jews who killed Christ as has been so wrongly asserted. He was nailed to the cross by Roman soldiers. That is just historical fact.

After his death, the early Christians were persecuted and martyred by the Romans, so how can you assert that the early Christians were (capital-C) Catholics (which actually means the Roman Catholic Church–for that is the current name of your Church)

I’m not Catholic-bashing here—just stating historical fact. You can’t just leave off the Roman part when it suits your semantics. The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church (and I am so sick of typing that, but it’s necessary for clarity) was not established until the 3RD Century—just because you want to leave the Roman part of it out, doesn’t change historical fact. In overall philosophy and practice, the Early Christian Church and The Roman Catholic Church are two separate entities. That is history.

How can I talk some sense into this woman?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

This is not my opinion only—this is history—factual history.

If it be “factual history” than certainly her claim can be backed up… factually of course.

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until AFTER Constantine began the merger of the early Christian church with the Roman Army in the 3RD Century.

Cough Prove it Cough

It wasn’t the Jews who killed Christ as has been so wrongly asserted. He was nailed to the cross by Roman soldiers. That is just historical fact.

Ummmmmm. Well. I hold that Jesus was killed by neither the Jews nor the Romans and that I had just as much to do with His death as anyone else. He did after all die for all our sins…

Something doesn’t become 'historical fact" simply because it is asserted.

How can I talk some sense into this woman?

You can’t. Pray and allow the Holy Spirit to do its work on her heart.

However just for a giggle I would respond with this:

You keep doing this even though you know better—I guess you think that if you keep asserting this, eventually people will just accept it. This is not my opinion only—this is history—factual history.

See how easy it is…

God bless

EDIT

By the way It would be hard for the Catholic Church to come into existence after Constantine’s merger in the 3rd century seeing as how Constantine did become Emperor until the 4th century… So much for “Factual History” huh? She has her centuries off on when Constantine ruled, where else do you suppose she is off?

I said lived, I meant was Emperor

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

So if a baby is due to be baptized due to a parent’s faith, and those parents had intended to baptize their infant, but got into an accident on the way to the Christening, how is this different then a catechumate dying in the same accident?

The catechumate receives a baptism of desire, but the baby doesn’t?

We cannot desire Baptism for someone else, only for ourselves. The child did not express their desire to seek Baptism. If they were get into an accident on the way to the Church the child would either be Emergency Baptized at the accident scene or possibly die without Baptism.

 

[Church_Militant]

When talking with my friend about infant baptism I said that it has been a practice since the early Church. I quoted some of the early Church Fathers writings. Some of these quotes had the term catholic in them such as the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. Then she sent me this email:

You keep doing this even though you know better—I guess you think that if you keep asserting this, eventually people will just accept it. This is not my opinion only—this is history—factual history.

Hogwash and other expletives of disdain!

She cannot substantiate her assertion either from scripture of from history. Call her bluff and make her cite her sources and she’ll fall back on rhetoric and propaganda because she can’t provide facts.

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until AFTER Constantine began the merger of the early Christian church with the Roman Army in the 3RD Century. Hint: ROMAN Catholic Church----ROMAN Army. The Roman Catholic Church and the Early Church are two distinct entities—the symbiosis with the Roman way of doing and thinking changed everything irrevocably—and not necessarily for the better I might add.

More historical bunkum. Your sources for Ignatius and Polycarp as well as the Didache long predate the 4th century and Constantine. again, call her bluff and ask for citation of sources of her proofs, but be prepared for the tirade that will follow because she cannot provide them.

Everything that Jesus taught and preached was diametrically opposed to the Roman Army and their way of doing things.That’s why they wanted Him out of the way. It wasn’t the Jews who killed Christ as has been so wrongly asserted. He was nailed to the cross by Roman soldiers. That is just historical fact.

Here’s a typical half-truth that is plainly not supported by the facts in the Gospels. If one reads the passion accounts, one plainly sees that it was because of the arrest and charges that the Jewish leaders brought against him (Think about last Sunday’s Gospel reading! It plainly says that the Jews charged him with blasphemy and that is why they hauled him before Pilate. The Romans executed Him only because the Jews were not legally allowed to under Roman law and Pilate gave in to them to avoid a riot.

After his death, the early Christians were persecuted and martyred by the Romans, so how can you assert that the early Christians were (capital-C) Catholics (which actually means the Roman Catholic Church–for that is the current name of your Church)

Another half truth. It was the Jews initially (She’s ignoring St. Paul before his conversion) and later on, after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD that the pagan Roman emperors began to persecute us. Here again, make her prove her every assertion.

I’m not Catholic-bashing here—just stating historical fact.

I can’t tell! But she cannot substantiate any of her “history” with facts. Push that…she will collapse into rhetoric and propaganda.

You can’t just leave off the Roman part when it suits your semantics.

This is just her rhetorical trash talk.

The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church (and I am so sick of typing that, but it’s necessary for clarity) was not established until the 3RD Century—just because you want to leave the Roman part of it out, doesn’t change historical fact.

(Yeah…well I’m already sick of her a-C rhetoric.) Like I said, her allegation is without substance and when you ask her to prove it and cite her sources she won’t be able to do so and you can rest assured that she will say something to the effect that you are blinded by Rome/Satan and will not listen because you are deceived and then you’ll just get another bucket full of this kind of a-C propaganda.

In overall philosophy and practice, the Early Christian Church and The Roman Catholic Church are two separate entities. That is history.

Completely untrue and anyone who knows both the New Testament and the writings (that you have already wisely cited!) can easily refute because it is obvious to the objective reader that they hold the same Catholic doctrines on the Eucharistic Real Presence, the Word of God and Tradition, and Salvation, Baptism, and many other things. All she’s done is express her wishful thing. I suspect that she’s parroting someone else’s teaching because she offers no citations and proofs.

How can I talk some sense into this woman?

I don’t think you can and I suspect that you are about to lose her as a “friend” because of it.

So long as you maintain this “friendship” you will be subjected to this kind of a-C propaganda. Sad but very likely true. Don’t fail to pray for her.

I like the Militia Immaculate variant of the daily Miraculous Medal prayer.

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee, and for all those who do not have
recourse to thee, especially the enemies of Holy Church
and those recommended to thee.

 

[NotWorthy]

When talking with my friend about infant baptism I said that it has been a practice since the early Church. I quoted some of the early Church Fathers writings. Some of these quotes had the term catholic in them such as the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. Then she sent me this email:

… blah, blah, blah…

How can I talk some sense into this woman?

So, rather than refuting your argument and clarifying to you that the CHRISTIAN Church did not baptize infants in the first century, she goes onto this rant.

So, how do you talk sense to her?

First of all, correct her. The ROMAN Catholic Church (or ARMY, whatever that means) according to her “myth” was formed in the 4th century, not the 3rd. Tell her to at least get her myth-conceptions correct.

Secondly, demonstrate that prior to the birth of the ROMAN Catholic Church (or ARMY), the Christian Church taught:

• infant Baptism
• Baptism as necessary to Salvation
• Confession
• The Sacrament of the Eucharist
• The Sacrifice of the Mass

Now, ask her why her church has deviated from these tenets of the Christian Church that existed prior to the ROMAN Catholic Church (or ARMY, whatever that means).

Note: Ignatius and Polycarp, even by her mis-reasoning, would have lived prior to the ROMAN Catholic Church (or ARMY), so they would have been part of the early Christian Church.

 

[JTBT]

The fact that the term “Trinity” and the phrase “Age of Accountability” are not in the Bible should be much more concerning to you than they are to me.

why is that? I understand that the term Trinity is not in the Bible, however the Trinity is reveled in the Bible.

What is the age though?

it varies from person to person; the age, in a way, is established by the individual.

The child?

in a way yes you could say the child establishes the age.

Also at what age does someone properly “understand that they are a sinner and in need of a savior”. And who decides that they have properly understood this?

…

Again, a congregation? The child? The child’s parents?

yes

I would certainly argue that an 8 year, on average, would not fully understand this.

I would certainly agree with this statement, but do you or any of us fully understand anything to do with God? but does the 8 year old have a understanding of sin and salvation?

…could have my child baptized and not just rely on your word that my son will be doing it at the right age?
God bless

you would not be having your son baptized your son would be accepting Christ and wanting to be Baptized himself.