Infant baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter kfarose2585
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kfarose2585

Guest
Why do we Catholics practice infant baptism, and why do many Protestants reject it? Is there Scriptural basis for this practice (infant vs. “believer” baptism), is it tradition-based, and is there any reason why immersion would be favored or not? The whole concept of baptism is so fascinating to me. Is it necessary for salvation that a Catholic be baptised, as an infant or otherwise? Or is it just a strong suggestion? I have many questions!
 
You’re wrong about most protestants rejecting infant baptism. Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Episcopalians all practice infant baptism.

Baptists and Pentecostals, who do not baptize infants, point to the New Testament that only tells of adults being baptized. This being said, infant baptism was practiced by early christians and subsequently became a tradition of the church. Most protestants, whether they baptize infants or not, don’t think of baptism as a saving act.
 
Catholics view Baptism as having a real effect–the removal of original sin and the regeneration of our souls. It is considered necessary for salvation. (allowing for baptism of desire.) Since it is a necessary sacrament, it is not withheld from children. The parents’ faith suffices for the infant, providing they intend to raise the child in the Faith of the Church.

JimG
 
Andyman–I didn’t say most, I said many. I was simply seeking the source of this division.

Jim–what if the parents have no faith, but pretend to do so so that their children are baptized? Is the baptism still just as “effective” in “regenererating” the child’s soul?

Thank you Jim and Andyman for your responses. This is starting to make more sense to me. However, no one has said what changed that made infant baptism replace adult baptism. Does anybody know? Also, are new Catholics baptised? Can old ones be re-baptized? And why immersion vs. non-immersion?
 
40.png
kfarose2585:
Jim–what if the parents have no faith, but pretend to do so so that their children are baptized? Is the baptism still just as “effective” in “regenererating” the child’s soul?
Click to expand...
O dear kfarose…your questions please my heart so. The Church teaches that it is Gods Grace that saves through the sacraments, of which baptizm is the “gateway” sacrament of initiation. Grace is undeserving favor from God. You can’t earn it, and thus you aren’t forced to do anything to initially recieve it except recieve it. This means that you don’t HAVE to make a aural confession of faith to recieve the sanctifying (saving) grace of God in the Sacrament of Baptism which is what we call Justification.

It might seem strange, but the Church teaches that the normative means to recieve the Sacrament is that it be administered by a Priest, but dire circumstances (war, bombing raid, etc) ANYONE (Christian, Jew, Atheist, pagan, etc) is allowed to administer the sacrament using whatever fluid medium that is available (yeah, water is the normative, but in a crisis soda, alcohol, urine, etc. can be used…at least it is my understanding that it can).

So, just as 1 Peter 2:21 states, this baptizm now saves you, not because you have faith or your parents have faith, but because of Gods Grace infusing in your soul. Gods Grace trancends the participants and their flawed characters in this event.

Pax Christi
 
The answer is somewhat assumed in the question.

Non-Catholics probably disagree with Catholics every chance they get, so that the origin of the controversy.

I hope someone more learned pins this down more precisely, but I would say that it’s generally related to the Old Testament practice of circumcising infants.

Baptism is related to the new covenant, and so there you go.

I like Charles Stanley’s explanation for baptism by immersion – because our Saviour commanded it and He did it Himself.

I like Harold Camping’s explanation of the sign of water – the immersion reminds us of the judgment of God brought down in the flood of Noah’s time. The water reminds us of the ritual washings in pools that people did on their way up to the temple. And, it reminds us of Jesus who is the Living Water. So, water was transformed in the bible from a sign of condemnation to a sign of redemption.

The previous posts raised interesting points as well. And, then there’s the verse in Ezechiel 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
 
Infant Baptism is not in any way opposed by or prohibited in the Scriptures. It is not directly spoken of but alluded to in the Baptizing of “whole households”. Immersion is simply a fuller sign of burial and riding with Christ. However either method of Baptism signifies the washing away of Sin. Baptism is necessary for for Salvation for those whom Baptism is accessable. God will supply the Grace of Baptism for those who personally desire Baptism but are unable to receive it, with no fault of their own. An infant is Baptized more correctly into the “Faith of the Church” not the faith of the parents.
 
Thanks, Bro. Rich, for the clarification. It is truly the Faith of the Church that suffices for the infant. And as Kecharitomene pointed out, God’s grace is freely given. However, as adults, we make a conscious decision to accept it.

In the Baptism liturgy for adults, the catechumen does make a statement of faith before being baptized. For infants, the faith of the church is sufficient, since the child will be a member of the church, and will be raised in the faith. And even if the parents don’t truly believe, yes, the baptism is effective for regeneration.

As far as why the church ‘changed’ it’s practice, I’m not convinced that it did. The new testament relates instances of receiving whole families into the church. This would have included infants. In this respect, baptism is the new circumcision–the initiation into the community.

Since baptism has a real and permanent effect, it is received only once. Persons who have been validly baptized previously–even in a Protestant church–are not re-baptized upon entering the Catholic Church.

Baptism by immersion more fully expresses the dying and rising with Christ that baptism signifies and effects. In one of our new parishes near here, the immersion baptismal is in the exact shape of a grave, to make this even more evident. One is submerged into the waters of the ‘grave’ to signify dying with Christ, and then emerges as newly risen with Christ.
 
Thank you everyone for your replies. I think I better understand infant baptism now. I only have a couple more questions: first, how can baptism be, as Jim said, the “new circumcision”? Wasn’t circumcision only practiced on boys? To equate baptism, which sanctifies all people, with circumcision, which simply signifies one sex’s covenant with God, doesn’t quite make sense to me. Can anyone clarify this for me?

As a side note (yes, I know–I’m changing the direction of this thread), why didn’t girls need some sort of circumcision too? Had they automatically entered into covenant with God upon birth? Did they never enter into such a covenant? Was some other ritual practiced? I’ve always wondered…
 
You’re right–the analogy with circumcision is imperfect since obviously only boys were circumcised. I don’t know the history of that, except that it was something that God commanded Abraham to do.

The main point was that it was a rite of initiating the child into the Lord’s covenant with Israel. Women were not excluded, but there was not a particular rite for them. Perhaps someone else can shed more light on that.

In Christianity, of course, Baptism is for everyone. It makes us a child of God and a member of the Church.
 
the term “new circumcision” as Paul uses it to mean baptism, refers to the new covenant superceding the old covenant, and the new law of Christ superceding the old law of Moses. It means that all the Levitical provisions of the law, including those binding on women such as ritual purification after menses and childbirth, for example, and laws binding on everyone, such as the food laws, are no longer in force under the new covenant.
 
40.png
kfarose2585:
Can old ones [Catholics/Christians] be re-baptized?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. The Sacrament is indelible and to “rebaptize” is a sacrilege.

CCC:

**1121 **The three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental *character *or “seal” by which the Christian shares in Christ’s priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. This configuration to Christ and to the Church, brought about by the Spirit, is indelible, it remains for ever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace, a promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church. Therefore these sacraments can never be repeated.
 
40.png
kfarose2585:
I only have a couple more questions: first, how can baptism be, as Jim said, the “new circumcision”? Wasn’t circumcision only practiced on boys? To equate baptism, which sanctifies all people, with circumcision, which simply signifies one sex’s covenant with God, doesn’t quite make sense to me. Can anyone clarify this for me?

As a side note (yes, I know–I’m changing the direction of this thread), why didn’t girls need some sort of circumcision too? Had they automatically entered into covenant with God upon birth? Did they never enter into such a covenant? Was some other ritual practiced? I’ve always wondered…
Click to expand...
Circumcision of males I think had to do with Tribal culture during the times. Women/girls were viewed much differently than what Western civilization views them today. The Bible nowhere says infants must be baptized but nowhere does it say that infant cannot be baptized. The Bible does say that households were being baptized which did include infants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top