Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[nonsumd]

#2 - Baptize them in the process
The word ‘baptizing’ would suggest that this is a process within making them disciples. But one cannot be a disciple until they choose to be. So within the journey of becoming a disciple you are baptized.

Anyways. Again the word ‘teaching’ would indicate a process. I think that there is a reason that both ‘baptizing’ and ‘teaching’ were used here because it indicates a never ending process. Through the teaching comes obeying (baptism).

No one is disputing that with regards to those who undergo baptism as adults baptism is in a sense “within” the process of learning the faith.

You seem to be saying that baptism is an on-going process in the same way that learning the faith is an on-going process.

The grammar of those two participial phrases (I assume the English mirrors the original Greek) does not, however, support your idea.

First of all, the -ing form does not always indicate an on-going process (as in a phrase like “I am teaching him” where the -ing form is part of the main verb of a sentence). In -ing participial phrases, the -ing only indicates some sense of simultaneity with the main verb of the phrase, e.g. “I helped him, handing him the hammer” or “I helped him, teaching him math.”

Baptizing someone takes a minute or two (say the formula, pour water on/immerse the person) just as handing someone a hammer does not take more than a few seconds. Teaching someone math could take a lifetime just like learning the faith could take a lifetime.

 

[Phil12123]

Phil, do you need some Scripture that shows that Baptism washes away Original Sin, preparing our souls to receive His Graces?

**Sure. While you’re at it, could you respond to the rest of my post so I can understand where you’re coming from? I’m referring to the post in which I said:

The effect of Adam and Eve’s sin is that we are all born with a sin nature or an inclination to commit actual, personal sin. That will never be eradicated until “the redemption of the body” when we receive our new resurrection bodies (Rom. 8:22-23; Phil 3:21). So what do you think is accomplished by baptizing a baby? It does not remove its sin nature and it does not have any personal sins to be washed away.

Respond to that first, then bring on your verses.
**

 

[MariaG]

**Sure. While you’re at it, could you respond to the rest of my post so I can understand where you’re coming from? I’m referring to the post in which I said: **

The effect of Adam and Eve’s sin is that we are all born with a sin nature or an inclination to commit actual, personal sin. That will never be eradicated until “the redemption of the body” when we receive our new resurrection bodies (Rom. 8:22-23; Phil 3:21). So what do you think is accomplished by baptizing a baby? It does not remove its sin nature and it does not have any personal sins to be washed away.

Respond to that first, then bring on your verses.

Original sin and the inclination to commit sin are defined as two different things according to the Catholic Church and her interpretation of scripture as passed down from the apostles. Baptism cleanses us from original sin, but we still have to live with the results of losing original holiness even if we no longer suffer under original sin.

[978 (http://javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/978.htm’) "When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them. . . . **Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil "523 **

edit

Maybe this will help you to understand the Catholic position better . We do not believe that baptism restores us to the same state that Adam and Eve were given. It washes away original sin but does not restore us to the state of original justice enjoyed by Adam and Eve until the fall.

From CA Library by Mike Sullivan

Adam and Eve lived in a state of “original justice”: the state of integrity wherein their whole beings were ordered to the will of God. With the fall, man has been deprived of the gifts our first parents enjoyed. These gifts are commonly called the “preternatural and supernatural gifts.” With baptism, only the supernatural gifts are restored.
The preternatural gifts, lost in the fall, are:

• infused knowledge,
• absence of concupiscence, and
• freedom from death and sickness.

The supernatural gifts, restored in baptism, are:

• indwelling of God in our souls through grace, and
• the theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity).

 

[Phil12123]

I am also curious about where you find the word “graces” (plural) in Scripture. If you are referring to the Greek word, “charis” or “karis,” I am unable to locate any verse in which it is translated in the plural as “graces.” It appears in the NT 156 times but never in the plural, except perhaps as “thanks.” Perhaps you are referring to “gifts” rather than “graces,” in which event it would be a translation of “charisma” or “karisma.” That word appears 17 times, 7 times in the plural as "gifts."

 

[Phil12123]

Original sin and the inclination to commit sin are defined as two different things according to the Catholic Church and her interpretation of scripture as passed down from the apostles. Baptism cleanses us from original sin, but we still have to live with the results of losing original holiness even if we no longer suffer under original sin.

Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil.

We do not believe that baptism restores us to the same state that Adam and Eve were given. It washes away original sin but does not restore us to the state of original justice enjoyed by Adam and Eve until the fall.

Adam and Eve lived in a state of “original justice”: the state of integrity wherein their whole beings were ordered to the will of God. With the fall, man has been deprived of the gifts our first parents enjoyed. These gifts are commonly called the “preternatural and supernatural gifts.” With baptism, only the supernatural gifts are restored.
The preternatural gifts, lost in the fall, are:

• infused knowledge,
• absence of concupiscence, and
• freedom from death and sickness.

The supernatural gifts, restored in baptism, are:

• indwelling of God in our souls through grace, and
• the theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity).

So, when you say baptism washes away original sin, what is original sin that is washed away, if not our sin nature? Is it the absence of those supernatural gifts that is “washed away”? If so, wouldn’t it be more proper to say baptism restores supernatural gifts, rather than saying it washes away anything?

 

[NotWorthy]

**Sure. While you’re at it, could you respond to the rest of my post so I can understand where you’re coming from? I’m referring to the post in which I said:

The effect of Adam and Eve’s sin is that we are all born with a sin nature or an inclination to commit actual, personal sin. That will never be eradicated until “the redemption of the body” when we receive our new resurrection bodies (Rom. 8:22-23; Phil 3:21). **

You’ve just described Concupiscence.** It’s also called the stain of Original Sin.

So what do you think is accomplished by baptizing a baby? It does not remove its sin nature and it does not have any personal sins to be washed away.

When Adam and Eve were created, they were filled with Grace, what Catholics call Sanctified Grace. After they lost it, it was non-existent in humans (with a few biblical exceptions) until Christ’s death and Resurrection. Remember when He said, I must leave you so that the Holy Spirit can come (paraphrasing). In Baptism, Original Sin is washed away (as well as any personal sins we may have acquired up til Baptism). The stain remains, concupiscence, which is the tendency or urge to sin. But our souls receive the Holy Spirit at this time, Who indwells with us until such time that we commit mortal sin and reject God’s Grace.

Respond to that first, then bring on your verses.

**Is that clear enough of a response?

Ah, MariaG, I see you’ve explained this already. Maybe my words will help clear up any misconceptions?

 

[NotWorthy]

I am also curious about where you find the word “graces” (plural) in Scripture. If you are referring to the Greek word, “charis” or “karis,” I am unable to locate any verse in which it is translated in the plural as “graces.” It appears in the NT 156 times but never in the plural, except perhaps as “thanks.” Perhaps you are referring to “gifts” rather than “graces,” in which event it would be a translation of “charisma” or “karisma.” That word appears 17 times, 7 times in the plural as "gifts."

I think graces and gifts are pretty close together. Catholics do list different types of graces, but this could be better covered in another thread.

For Catholics, Sanctified Grace is the Holy Spirit dwelling in our souls. This, of course, is a gift from God.

 

[NotWorthy]

So, when you say baptism washes away original sin, what is original sin that is washed away, if not our sin nature? Is it the absence of those supernatural gifts that is “washed away”? If so, wouldn’t it be more proper to say baptism restores supernatural gifts, rather than saying it washes away anything?

I don’t know. You may want to ask the Apostles why they phrased it that way?

 

[onenow1]

Hi, All
Some last thoughts; From approx. 150AD to 1500’s infant baptism was a common practice, so I suppose, after the great apostacy of the catholic church whenever that may have been?Christianity was turned upside down by the enlightned reformation.:dts:

Matthew 28​

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

One more thing denying that God can make water baptism efficacious is unreasonable, after all he is all powerful !

In Love and Peace, OneNow1

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi, All
Some last thoughts; From approx. 150AD to 1500’s infant baptism was a common practice, so I suppose, after the great apostacy of the catholic church whenever that may have been?Christianity was turned upside down by the enlightned reformation.:dts:

And evidence from the Roman Catacombs indicates that infant baptism was practiced in the first century. It was not uncommon.

BTW, infant baptism never became uncommon. You might want to bump that 1500 number back about 500+ years!!!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Hi, All
Some last thoughts; From approx. 150AD to 1500’s infant baptism was a common practice, so I suppose, after the great apostacy of the catholic church whenever that may have been?Christianity was turned upside down by the enlightned reformation.:dts:

Matthew 28​

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

One more thing denying that God can make water baptism efficacious is unreasonable, after all he is all powerful !

In Love and Peace, OneNow1

Personally I think that it is important to take note of the traditions and histories of the church. But I don’t think we need to quit thinking just because others have done some thinking before us. If 1500 years of history was wrong, or if 1499 years of history was right and the 1500th year was wrong, wouldn’t you want to change it so that you didn’t have a 1501st year that was wrong.

Let’s face it, if it was all about preserving tradition alone, our Bibles would end with the book of Deuteronomy. As informative as tradition is, sometimes the old ways are NOT the best ways. God did a new thing in Jesus Christ and looking through a new lens at the old truths might help us get closer to what God’s will is for us than merely repeating the former ways, or are they still singing Gregorian chants in mass these days?

 

[NotWorthy]

Personally I think that it is important to take note of the traditions and histories of the church. But I don’t think we need to quit thinking just because others have done some thinking before us. If 1500 years of history was wrong, or if 1499 years of history was right and the 1500th year was wrong, wouldn’t you want to change it so that you didn’t have a 1501st year that was wrong.

While Catholics do tend to hold onto the “Traditions given to us by word of mouth or in writing” (paraphrasing), I admit it doesn’t carry much wait with those that do not confirm our traditions.

Of course, “Sola Verse-ura” is also a pointless argument against Catholics.

 

[sonoflife1]

Scriptural evidence is “compelling” because in New Testament times, all the converts were of the age of reason.

What about the “compelling” passages that say whole households were baptised? Scripture does not give a clearcut answer on this. This is a key place where we NEED to go by the evidence and practice of the early Church.

 

[nonsumd]

Personally I think that it is important to take note of the traditions and histories of the church. But I don’t think we need to quit thinking just because others have done some thinking before us. If 1500 years of history was wrong, or if 1499 years of history was right and the 1500th year was wrong, wouldn’t you want to change it so that you didn’t have a 1501st year that was wrong.

Let’s face it, if it was all about preserving tradition alone, our Bibles would end with the book of Deuteronomy. As informative as tradition is, sometimes the old ways are NOT the best ways. God did a new thing in Jesus Christ and looking through a new lens at the old truths might help us get closer to what God’s will is for us than merely repeating the former ways, or are they still singing Gregorian chants in mass these days?

If by “old ways” we mean those that can be traced back to Apostolic times (the Apostles being those whom Jesus directly taught), how can we say that they are not the “best” ways?

Also, at the same time, “old ways” and “new ways” need not be better or worse than each other in an absolute sense - the “old ways” were appropriate to the times when they were “new” just as the “new ways” are appropriate in the present time.

Even further, there is the question of the “development of doctrine,” the idea that the Church refines its understanding of truths of the faith (very often in response to heresies that teach ideas contrary to those truths). I understand Sola Scriptura Protestants do not accept any notion of the development of doctrine and insist that they find all their doctrines, however innovative, unequivocally in Scripture.

If the point of believer’s baptism is that one should be free to accept consciously Jesus Christ as one’s personal savior, can one truly say that those who grow up in Christian families within a Christian society (and one where accurate knowledge of non-Christian religions is rare or at any rate unsought) are in reality completely free not to choose Christ?

If “choosing Christ as one’s personal savior” is what everyone in one’s community does anyway, how sincere and uncoerced can we assume every instance of “choosing” to be? How really different is such a believer’s baptism from the baptism of an infant? Choices are being made for an individual by their community in both cases.

We Catholics believe that baptism in infancy, among other things, confers grace that helps the baptized consciously to choose Christ and conform himself to Christ’s will later in life.

Another aspect I am not sure has been mentioned is that baptism is a form of exorcism: it removes the soul from the power of the devil and his demons (Colossians 1:11-14 speaks in these terms when it reminds disciples, naturally all baptized to be regarded as such, what they have been saved from) - and this deliverance that comes with baptism cannot be assumed to be denied infants because in the next chapter Paul speaks of baptism as replacing circumcision, a rite normally performed on infants rather than on adults (see Carl Keating’s discussion in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Chapter 14 (pp.177-181).

 

[dosdog]

Post a verse that says these infants are going to heaven

2 A mamzer, that is to say, one born of a prostitute, shall not enter into the church of the Lord, until the tenth generation.

A relatively high percentage of babies born in the U.S. die before their first birthday, compared with other industrialized nations. Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. in 2004. The U.S. rate was 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. It was 13.7 for Black Americans, the same as Saudi Arabia. apnews.myway.com/article/20070812/D8QVEIRO0.html

4 The wicked are alienated from the womb; they have gone astray from the womb: they have spoken false things.

Title: Is my son Evil,
When my son was 4 (he will be 6 in Sept) he made an outcry that his step dad had been sexually abusing him. His stories were very graphic. He cried and yelled. He wet the bed and had nightmares. Now he says that he lied. My son told me he just hated his step dad because he was not his real dad and he did not want him there. He says that a little boy at his daycare was telling him all those things and that his dad was going to Jail, so he thought he would do the same thing.
medhelp.org/forums/ChildBehavior/messages/33189.htm

Several things happen at baptism. First, the spiritual (though not physical) effects of original sin are removed from the soul. This removal is accompanied by an infusion of sanctifying grace, which makes the soul spiritually alive. The soul receives an indelible character that irrevocably identifies it as a member of the heavenly family.

Also, all punishment due to pre-baptismal actual sins is completely remitted. This kind of baptism–the only kind mentioned in the Bible–is for the living, not for the dead. Our chance to become heirs with Christ comes here on earth. Once we’ve died, there is no chance to be baptized.

Infants are incorporated into Christ, not through an act of their own will, but through an act of the sponsor who represents the Church and assumes responsibility for the spiritual education of the infant. The parents, of course, must consent to the baptism;

The merits of Christ’s sacrifice can be applied without baptism by water through baptism of desire or blood
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CAMORM2.HTM
THESE ARE THE SACRAMENTS
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/SACRAMEN.TXT
CHAP.X.–DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY
Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining “but one baptism.”(20) To be “baptized for the dead” therefore means, in fact, to be baptized for the body;(21) for, as we have shown,
forerunner.com/churchfathers/X0079_15.Tertullian-_Aga.html

 

[onenow1]

Personally I think that it is important to take note of the traditions and histories of the church. But I don’t think we need to quit thinking just because others have done some thinking before us. If 1500 years of history was wrong, or if 1499 years of history was right and the 1500th year was wrong, wouldn’t you want to change it so that you didn’t have a 1501st year that was wrong.

Let’s face it, if it was all about preserving tradition alone, our Bibles would end with the book of Deuteronomy. As informative as tradition is, sometimes the old ways are NOT the best ways. God did a new thing in Jesus Christ and looking through a new lens at the old truths might help us get closer to what God’s will is for us than merely repeating the former ways, or are they still singing Gregorian chants in mass these days?

It’s all about authority Jesus hints at authority as a matter of fact
when he says: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commended you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt. 28:18-20).

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; the bible does’nt bind anything it is tradition written down. So tell us who is doing all this binding and loosing; The bible is a very catholic book ! You might want to rewrite it with 21st century views. With could be isms.

I think the Byzantine Catholic still have the chants.

Goodnigt and the Lord be with you. Peace, OneNow1

 

[Phil12123]

If the point of believer’s baptism is that one should be free to accept consciously Jesus Christ as one’s personal savior, can one truly say that those who grow up in Christian families within a Christian society (and one where accurate knowledge of non-Christian religions is rare or at any rate unsought) are in reality completely free not to choose Christ?

If “choosing Christ as one’s personal savior” is what everyone in one’s community does anyway, how sincere and uncoerced can we assume every instance of “choosing” to be? How really different is such a believer’s baptism from the baptism of an infant? Choices are being made for an individual by their community in both cases.

**Whether you can question a person’s choice is “sincere and uncoerced” because of pressure from others is really irrelevant. When a person reaches the age of reason and can comprehend the gospel message, he will make his own decision to accept or reject Christ. If his decision was not one of the heart and total commitment (for whatever reason), he remains lost. If it was of the heart and involved total commitment, he is saved. He then would be baptized. It is his choice, not the community’s.

In the case of an infant, no baptism is needed nor commanded in Scripture. If he is baptized, it is strictly others who are making the choice.**

We Catholics believe that baptism in infancy, among other things, confers grace that helps the baptized consciously to choose Christ and conform himself to Christ’s will later in life.

**It is the Gospel plus the Holy Spirit that leads a person “consciously to choose Christ and conform himself to Christ’s will later in life,” not baptism.

**

 

[nonsumd]

**Whether you can question a person’s choice is “sincere and uncoerced” because of pressure from others is really irrelevant. When a person reaches the age of reason and can comprehend the gospel message, he will make his own decision to accept or reject Christ. If his decision was not one of the heart and total commitment (for whatever reason), he remains lost. If it was of the heart and involved total commitment, he is saved. He then would be baptized. It is his choice, not the community’s.

In the case of an infant, no baptism is needed nor commanded in Scripture. If he is baptized, it is strictly others who are making the choice.**

Phil, arguing infant baptism vs. believer’s baptism with you is futile since, as I believe it was Grace Seeker who remarked, traditional Christianity and your innovative Christianity have different ideas about what baptism is supposed to accomplish.

My point is that, if “choosing Christ” is the cultural norm, then it becomes likely that many will “choose Christ” under what is in effect at least psychological coercion. The individual who has reached the age of reason and and is not totally free to “choose Christ” or not is not that different from a child who does not consent to the baptism that his parents impose on him.

The only group I know of that postpones baptism and gives its young people a real chance to choose Christ (as this group defines that) or not are the Amish, who have a practice called rumspringa, whereby before agreeing to baptism and thus to the Amish way of life, young people are permitted to taste life in the non-Amish world.

What constitutes “total commitment”? Just answering an altar call and making a “total commitment” to Christ. It seems to me that you think only in terms of “sincere commitment” (= being saved) or “insincere commitment” (= staying damned). Are there not other possibilities? Cannot a person pledge himself to Christ without completely understanding what that requires? Cannot a person understand that fully well and pledge himself totally and yet still go on to fail to live up to the demands of discipleship?

How is a pledge of “total commitment” ever anything but provisional, something realized by being lived out and not merely by being declared? Recall the parable of the two brothers: one said yes to his father’s command at once but did not end up doing it, while the other at first said no but ended up obeying.

Jesus is the greatest psychologist that there has ever been or could ever be. How then can you claim to derive your theology from His teaching when your theology displays such an indifference to the complexities of human psychology?

It is the Gospel plus the Holy Spirit that leads a person “consciously to choose Christ and conform himself to Christ’s will later in life,” not baptism.

Grace is what leads a person to conversion, and grace comes in many forms, one of which is that conferred through baptism. The NT time and agains speaks of baptism as having a real power to effect spritual change in a person (which particular changes for which categories of individuals have been mentioned by many posters) – it is not merely an outward sign of conversion.

 

[onenow1]

Consider this: God is pure love there is nothig we can do to increase that Love, he did however leave us a simple command, in a few simple words,His very last command, go out an baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [and teach.]

In obedience,[in our faith] we give our children to God at baptism, the child becomes a pure gift to God, after washing away original sin. The child then has his original nature, the state of grace as he intended.

How baptism does this is a mystery, one thing I’m certain of if Jesus can rise from the dead He certainly can make baptism effective.

In Love ad Peace, OneNow1

 

[dosdog]

Post one verse that denies infant baptism - you cant -
Dont blame God if your infants do not make it to Heaven - You did it to them

5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Dead Infants cannot consent

2 A mamzer, that is to say, one born of a prostitute, shall not enter into the church of the Lord, until the tenth generation. 3 The Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth generation shall not enter into the church of the Lord for ever

4 The wicked are alienated from the womb; they have gone astray from the womb: they have spoken false things.

I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation

5 And every firstborn in the land of the Egyptians shall die, from the firstborn of Pharao who sitteth on his throne, even to the first born of the handmaid that is at the mill, and all the firstborn of beasts

firesetters. The mean age of this group is 5 years (range, 3–7 years). ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_9_2/page6.html

Exploratory/curious animal abuse. Children in this category are likely to be of preschool or early elementary school age, family pets and/or stray animals and neighborhood wildlife.

Violent BehaviorAnimal abuse at early age linked to interpersonal violence childresearch.net/RESOURCE/NEWS/2000/200003.HTM

Carol Edmund Cole - His first violent act was strangling a puppy.- Murdered 35 people sniksnak.com/ac/connection.html

Title: Is my son Evil,
When my son was 4 (he will be 6 in Sept) he made an outcry that his step dad had been sexually abusing him. His stories were very graphic. He cried and yelled. He wet the bed and had nightmares. Now he says that he lied. My son told me he just hated his step dad because he was not his real dad and he did not want him there. He says that a little boy at his daycare was telling him all those things and that his dad was going to Jail, so he thought he would do the same thing.

4 The wicked are alienated from the womb; they have gone astray from the womb: they have spoken false things.
medhelp.org/forums/ChildBehavior/messages/33189.htm

In October 1994, five-year-old Silje Raedergard was attacked by two six-year-old boys, who left her dying in the snow. The names of Raedergard’s young assailants were never revealed in the Norwegian press, and neither boy was prosecuted.
bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/001109_child.shtmll

A relatively high percentage of babies born in the U.S. die before their first birthday, compared with other industrialized nations. Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. in 2004. The U.S. rate was 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. It was 13.7 for Black Americans, the same as Saudi Arabia. apnews.myway.com/article/20070812/D8QVEIRO0.html