Infant Baptism

[Hunter24]

As a Wiccan, how do you justify your parents’ decision to bring you into the world, i.e. your “initiation” into life, without your permission? Baptism is the same thing, only it is spiritual life. But frankly, if the child doesn’t grow up believing it and doesn’t believe in the ritual anyway, what difference would infant baptism make anyway to an unbeliever’s mind?

Because it is the natural tendancy of life to procreate. And because it is done while the person is unable to give consent, and such a important decision (receiving a religiouse sacrament) is not their choice.

 

[JonNC]

Because it is the natural tendancy of life to procreate. And because it is done while the person is unable to give consent, and such a important decision (receiving a religiouse sacrament) is not their choice.

It is also a natural tendency of parents to protect their young, even and often against their will. In faith Christians bring their children to baptism to avail them of God’s promise, “Baptism now saves you.”

Jon

 

[MarcoPolo]

Because it is the natural tendancy of life to procreate. And because it is done while the person is unable to give consent, and such a important decision (receiving a religiouse sacrament) is not their choice.

Okay, infant baptism is done when someone cannot give consent, too. But I am still confused at the problem. I’m not sure of your perspective, but both potential scenarios confuse me. Here are the 2 scenarios I see:

1. If infant baptism truly imparts sanctifying life onto the recipient.
If an infant is born with original sin and we can remove that stain by baptizing the infant, and we can deliver that child from a more uncertain fate outside the saving work of Christ, then of course, it makes perfect sense to baptize an infant.

2. If infant baptism imparts nothing and is just an empty ritual.
In this case, there is no effect on the infant anyway. So it is irrelevant and not an “important decision” whatsoever if the infant is baptized or not. Why would anyone be critical of making a child get baptized. It is no more or less important to pour water over the infant’s head in baptism than to dress the child in white socks or gray socks.

To which of the previous two premises do you hold? Or is there some 3rd I’ve not considered?

 

[Hunter24]

Okay, infant baptism is done when someone cannot give consent, too. But I am still confused at the problem. I’m not sure of your perspective, but both potential scenarios confuse me. Here are the 2 scenarios I see:

1. If infant baptism truly imparts sanctifying life onto the recipient.
If an infant is born with original sin and we can remove that stain by baptizing the infant, and we can deliver that child from a more uncertain fate outside the saving work of Christ, then of course, it makes perfect sense to baptize an infant.

2. If infant baptism imparts nothing and is just an empty ritual.
In this case, there is no effect on the infant anyway. So it is irrelevant and not an “important decision” whatsoever if the infant is baptized or not. Why would anyone be critical of making a child get baptized. It is no more or less important to pour water over the infant’s head in baptism than to dress the child in white socks or gray socks.

To which of the previous two premises do you hold? Or is there some 3rd I’ve not considered?

Would you be mad if you were incapacitated or otherwise unable to consent, would you be mad if you were made to take part in a religiouse ritual from a religion you don’t beleave (because we can all agree that baby’s don’t beleave in Jesus, they have neither the knowledge nor mental capacity). It’s not a problem if you are of that religion, but what if you were drunk and made to take part in a hindu ritual?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Would you be mad if you were incapacitated or otherwise unable to consent, would you be mad if you were made to take part in a religiouse ritual from a religion you don’t beleave (because we can all agree that baby’s don’t beleave in Jesus, they have neither the knowledge nor mental capacity). It’s not a problem if you are of that religion, but what if you were drunk and made to take part in a hindu ritual?

You are not answering me. But I prefer to stick with the comparison of parents-infant, because, as you say, we are discussing persons who otherwise are incapacited from making such decisions. If my parents did some Hindu ritual that involved sprinkling water on me as an infant, and I grew up and considered it an empty rite, and I chose to follow a different faith when I grew up, I can’t fathom being bitter about what I saw as an empty ritual, especially when my parents did it with loving motives. So, I still do not understand your grievance.

 

[R_C]

Would you be mad if you were incapacitated or otherwise unable to consent, would you be mad if you were made to take part in a religiouse ritual from a religion you don’t beleave (because we can all agree that baby’s don’t beleave in Jesus, they have neither the knowledge nor mental capacity). It’s not a problem if you are of that religion, but what if you were drunk and made to take part in a hindu ritual?

Hunter, infants don’t need to believe in Jesus to receive the gift of sanctifying grace. There is a big difference between other religions and Christianity in that we don’t believe but we know because we have seen and heard and we see and hear. We don’t believe in Jesus, we know Jesus. We don’t force a baby into a religion, we give him a gift that God has reserved for each of us, just like we’d give him a vaccine or teach him a language or keep him warm in winter.

I have a hard time understanding what bothers you so much about Baptism. It is such a simple thing, the pouring of a bit of water on the head of a baby while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Why such aversion against such a simple thing? People are anyways free to choose what religion to profess, or to profess no religion at all.

 

[Corso]

I think one thing for me is the seriousness of baptism, as needing to be done to enter the kingdom of God, I would have liked to have mentally been a part of that, and being RC it is to only be done once. One also needs to believe that a child is brorn with sin, this is a tough one for me, there are a lot of verses pertaining to the purity of children, especially that all men must become as children to enter the kingdom of God, if babies are born with sin, why would men have to become like them? That draws a lot of questions to me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think one thing for me is the seriousness of baptism, as needing to be done to enter the kingdom of God, I would have liked to have mentally been a part of that, and being RC it is to only be done once. One also needs to believe that a child is brorn with sin, this is a tough one for me, there are a lot of verses pertaining to the purity of children, especially that all men must become as children to enter the kingdom of God, if babies are born with sin, why would men have to become like them? That draws a lot of questions to me.

I would encourage you to seek a more Eastern understanding of the faith which I believe will appease your apprehensions.

 

[R_C]

I think one thing for me is the seriousness of baptism, as needing to be done to enter the kingdom of God, I would have liked to have mentally been a part of that, and being RC it is to only be done once. One also needs to believe that a child is brorn with sin, this is a tough one for me, there are a lot of verses pertaining to the purity of children, especially that all men must become as children to enter the kingdom of God, if babies are born with sin, why would men have to become like them? That draws a lot of questions to me.

That is just one way to word it, but you don’t need to believe such thing, inasmuch as a child has not committed any sin. We can very well state - in full conformity with the teaching of the Church - that children are born without sanctifying grace.

We know that we lost sanctifying grace with original sin.

But the Lord Jesus gained sanctifying grace back for us through His obedience even unto death, sacrificing Himself for us, while we were still sinners and deprived of the sanctifying grace.

After the Resurrection there are two ordinary ways to regain this state of grace.

First, with Baptism. For the first time sanctifying grace comes upon us and seals us permanently. Which means that if we lose it by mortal sin, we can still regain it by the merits of Christ.

Second, with Reconciliation. Before the coming of Christ there was no forgiveness of sins (and we know that the Lord Himself was accused of blasphemy for forgiving sins). But God had spoken of the coming of Christ through His prophet Isaiah, saying:

I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins.

though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow

Christ said very clearly:

I have not come to call righteous people, but sinners, to repentance.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…" Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”

The disciples were filled with joy when they saw the Lord. Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”

“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

Forgiveness came through Christ, that is, by His merits the sanctifying grace may be restored in us. Christ exhorted us to be baptized, partaking Himself in the Baptism not for His sake, but for our sake, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and the Father let His voice be heard…not for His sake, but for ours. Through His commands and exhortations we learned that forgiveness is granted if we repent, and by His authority the apostles and their successors can forgive sins just like He did.

As for the Lord’s words on children, he did not refer to their grace, but to their complete trust in their parents. A child near his parents has no worries, no fears, and he follows them faithfully and obediently, with filial fear and full of joy at their presence.

I did not fully understand the phrase “I would have liked to have mentally been a part of that”. When you were born, you had no active role. So is in the case of infant baptism. You don’t need to do something on your side, which is why the Lord speaks of being “born again of water and spirit”.

 

[Corso]

As for what mentally being a part of it means to me: being reborn in a new life with Christ my Savior, I would have liked to have mentally been aware of that moment.

It’s gonna be hard for me to get past this, because I really have a hard time believing we are born in sin, born into a sinful world yes, capable of sinning yes, but already tarnished with it no. Inherit the sins of others no. Inherit sickness, disease, addiction etc from other’s sins yes, but not the actual sins themselves.

 

[Jehannette]

As for what mentally being a part of it means to me: being reborn in a new life with Christ my Savior, I would have liked to have mentally been aware of that moment.

It’s gonna be hard for me to get past this, because I really have a hard time believing we are born in sin, born into a sinful world yes, capable of sinning yes, but already tarnished with it no. Inherit the sins of others no. Inherit sickness, disease, addiction etc from other’s sins yes, but not the actual sins themselves.

If you’re not born with original sin, why do you need to “accept Jesus as your Savior”? In other words, if you believe that human beings are born in a state of “original sanctification” at what in a person’s life would salvation become necessary?

 

[Corso]

Because you are born into a world with sin and will sin against God’s law once you actually know what it is, as a baby you have no idea what the law is, or God, or sin. I can’t remember where it was but I believe I read, one can not sin if they don’t know the law, probably not the exact quote as I read it a bit ago. but it was definitely along those lines. I’m sure someone can reference that up.

 

[Jehannette]

Because you are born into a world with sin and will sin against God’s law once you actually know what it is, as a baby you have no idea what the law is, or God, or sin. I can’t remember where it was but I believe I read, one can not sin if they don’t know the law, probably not the exact quote as I read it a bit ago. but it was definitely along those lines. I’m sure someone can reference that up.

So, you’re in a “state of grace” from birth until you sin? How about venial versus mortal? A child who, at age 7, steals her sister’s candy and who dies with that sin on her soul goes to Hell?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I believe I read, one can not sin if they don’t know the law

Is the verse in question talking about actual sin or original sin? If you think of the verse, let us know.

 

[Corso]

So, you’re in a “state of grace” from birth until you sin? How about venial versus mortal? A child who, at age 7, steals her sister’s candy and who dies with that sin on her soul goes to Hell?

I guess as stated in the catechism for a child not baptized, that would be for God to judge right?

I also don’t recall reading, or seeing jesus labeling sins in categories, but I am not superversed yet as some in the scripture and I may be mistaken there, hence my search.

 

[Corso]

Research takes me to john 15:22. If I had not come and spoken to them they would not be guilty of sin. My take on this is if you don’t know Christ or his word as he states they would not be guilty of sin. and basically the same statement here…1 John 3:4 “The person who sins breaks God’s law. Yes sin is living against God’s law.”
How can one live against God’s law at birth? Did any of us know the law of God when we were born?

 

[R_C]

My take on this is if you don’t know Christ or his word as he states they would not be guilty of sin. …] Did any of us know the law of God when we were born?

Actually, yes. We all do. Not knowing Christ is not a justification. St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, covers this topic, but the following Scripture sort of clarifies the point.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.

As for being born without sanctifying grace, this is not something we have come up with, but something clearly stated in the Scriptures:

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Please realize that researching the truth does not always imply understanding the truth: our finite mind cannot comprehend God’s ways except through the example set by Christ.

Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[Corso]

I pray to God all day to show me the way, I know I will never understand completely, because it is to much for me to understand. I just have this burning fire in me or thirst I guess would be a good word to describe it since coming back into the faith.

And since I was born and raised catholic and fell away from the church due to a lot of personal doubts in the traditions and teachings this is why I am really questioning the catholic church now.
I was raised catholic, not by choice, it’s just what you did and were taught you didn’t question it. It’s what my parents are, my grandparents, there parents and down the line, and even asking my Mother recently why she is catholic, her answer is because that’s what we are.

That answer is not good enough for me to commit myself too it. My Wife and I are going to start trying to build our family and I really want to get a grasp on what I feel is right and brings me closest to God from his word. I have also been reading bits and pieces of other religions and some just seem to really interpret the bible in some different ways.

I don’t want anyone to feel offended by my questions, but as I read through the bible in areas of baptism, I just am not seeing the requirement for infant baptism. Even going to psalms with david like you posted R_C, I read that over and over and doesn’t seem like he is asking for forgiveness of original sin that he was born with, he sounds to be asking for forgiveness of his sins that he has committed. every statement he makes is “my” sin “I” have done.
“And in sin my mother concieved me” couldn’t this be the state that his mother concieved him in? a sinful way? he sounds to be clearly stating there she sinned in conceiving him. These things are what I am truely questioning as alot of things seem to come down to interpretation of man, and to be honest that scares me!!!

 

[R_C]

I understand you and I confirm that I may have experienced personally some of the things you feel.

However, I see being Christian and being a member of the Church as something quite natural. Why are we humans? Because that’s what we are. Why are we Christians? Because Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Why are we in the Church? Because there is one bread, one body, one Church, which is one, catholic, apostolic.

The real question is: why are there other Christian communities? Well, while the Orthodox church professes to be part of the “one church” and it is almost in full communion with the Catholic Church, the other five gazillion communities are born after the Reform:

I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.

he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust

St. Paul explains that “by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners”. He said that because of original sin, all others were made sinners…not by their fault, but by the first disobedience. The Church, in the Catechism, explains here:

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.

By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.

Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

original sin does not have the character of a personal fault. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”.

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Again, the Church does not *require *infant baptism! It does not. It is only greatly recommended. But once you learn about Baptism and how necessary it is, then you won’t want your baby to be without it…the Church recommends that you rather baptize him right away, for his own good.

You must definitely know that the Church - the Catholic Church - has had countless theologians study the Scriptures and the theology of original sin and sanctifying grace and the sacrament of Baptism, and that a lifetime would not suffice to read all Catholic books written in the centuries in justification of this topic. Which is why I disregard all modern writings by schismatic communities, resting safe on almost 20 centuries of unchanged Catholic studies.

If you distrust the centuries of studies and teachings of the Magisterium, how would you rather trust a few decades of studies that some modern Christian community developed based on the teachings of the Church but without adding anything to them, only taking away?

…and what about the Eucharist? The Lord Himself through countless miracles has demonstrated His real presence in the host…that must be meaningful for you, like it was for me…even now, when the Priest lifts the Host, I can feel these words: “Be still, and know that I am God”.

 

[Corso]

See that is my problem right now, I do believe a lot of the teachings of the catholic church, I have the same Lord and Savior there is no question in that, but I question a lot of the practices, I am torn and pray everyday for God to lead me on the right path. It is eating me alive all day, everyday.