Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[Grace_Seeker]

What I meant was, Matt. 28 and Mark 16 are the only passages in which Jesus tells anyone to baptize anyone, Perhaps you missed (or ignored) my comments above as to why, but I think basing theology on anything in Mark 16:9-20 is a dangerous scenario.

Because they are innocent of any personal sin and therefore have nothing that would keep them out of heaven. Jesus said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” referring to that innocence.

When Jesus made that statement, he wasn’t referring to children as innocent. He was referring to the faith he saw in children. He was saying that we need to have the same approach to God/heaven that children have – total acceptance and dependence.

Beside, Phil, have you forgotten all about original sin in your declaration of children’s innocence? I agree that children can go to heaven based on God’s grace, but let us have none of this nonsence of calling any human being innocent. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God – that includes children and infants.

 

[jmcrae]

Because they are innocent of any personal sin and therefore have nothing that would keep them out of heaven. Jesus said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” referring to that innocence.

Then what do any of us need Jesus for? If we are born in total innocence, then surely it is our own problem if we later sin.

I thought we needed Jesus because we were BORN INTO sin, and did not have the ability to help ourselves.

 

[ncgolf]

No, not until they repent and believe the Gospel. How do you define “disciple”? Learner only, rather than believer? How can you say an infant or one before birth is a learner of the Gospel?

There are no pre-requisites for baptism, none, zero. Baptism removes original sin and the effects of that sin, confers sanctifying grace and marks one permanently as one of Christ’s own. Discipleship and baptism have no real connection. Discipleship comes from following Christ’s way, in a sense giving what has been given to us. Baptism is grace … a free gift.

Baptism shows the true genorisity of Christ … unmerited grace.

 

[onenow1]

There are no pre-requisites for baptism, none, zero. Baptism removes original sin and the effects of that sin, confers sanctifying grace and marks one permanently as one of Christ’s own. Discipleship and baptism have no real connection. Discipleship comes from following Christ’s way, in a sense giving what has been given to us. Baptism is grace … a free gift.

Baptism shows the true genorisity of Christ … unmerited grace.

Quote OneNow1, That’s why the church asks what do you want for this child ? Response from Godparents and Parents
Faith.
What a wonderful testimony to God . Complete trust in Him !

Acts 22: 16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,> calling on his name.<

Notice the urgency of being baptised.]

Peace,OneNow1

P.S. RIGHT ON NCGOLF !

 

[dosdog]

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

Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through “baptism of blood,” martyrdom for Christ, or through “baptism of desire”, that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism. thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system
catholic.com/library/necessity_of_baptism.asp

Modern Catholic Encyclopedia
It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act.
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.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.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CAMORM2.HTM
THESE ARE THE SACRAMENTS
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/SACRAMEN.TXT

Confirmation 7 Symbols in 1 Sacrament
by Thomas Richstatter, O.F.M., Th.D.

1. Community

The primary symbol of Confirmation is the community itself. Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist are sacraments of initiation, initiation into a community.The community that gathers to celebrate your Confirmation is not there merely to watch; it is the community into which you are being initiated. The community is the sign of Christ’s presence for you.

1. Baptism

Every Confirmation begins with Baptism. This is true whether the Baptism was celebrated only a few moments before Confirmation (as in many Eastern rites and in our Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults), whether the Baptism was celebrated six years before (as in those dioceses where Confirmation is celebrated before first holy Communion), 14 years before Confirmation, or even 50 years before Confirmation

1. Anointing
2. Touch
3. Words
4. The Minister
5. Eucharist
   americancatholic.org/Newsletters/YU/ay0497.asp

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.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CAMORM2.HTM
THESE ARE THE SACRAMENTS
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/SACRAMEN.TXT

The Gifts of the Holy Spirit in
We turn now to the Seven Gifts of the sanctifying category. They are: wisdom, understanding, knowledge, counsel, fortitude, piety and fear of the Lord.

They each perfect certain basic virtues. Four of them perfect the intellectual virtues. Understanding gives an intuitive penetration into truth. Wisdom perfects charity, in order to judge divine things. Knowledge perfects the virtue of hope. The gift of counsel perfects prudence.The other three gifts perfect virtues of the will and appetites. The gift of piety perfects justice in giving to others that which is their due. This is especially true of giving God what is His due. Fortitude perfects the virtue of fortitude, in facing dangers. Fear of the Lord perfects temperance in controlling disordered appetites.

In the “sanctifying category” we find the seven gifts, which are given along with sanctifying (habitual) grace.

The other category is called charismatic. These graces are not aimed directly an making the recipient holy. They are for some other sort of benefit to the individual or the community. There are two kinds of charismatic graces: ordinary and extraordinary.

In the “charismatic” category we find both the ordinary gifts–e.g, the gift to be a good parent or a good teacher–and the extraordinary gifts, those which are or seem miraculous, such as the gifts of healing, tongues, or miracles.
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/index.htm

 

[Phil12123]

Perhaps you missed (or ignored) my comments above as to why, but I think basing theology on anything in Mark 16:9-20 is a dangerous scenario.

**No, I didn’t miss or ignore your comments on Mark’s ending. I want to do some more research on it. One source, for example, said 99% of the Mark manuscripts have the long ending, etc. I know there is a dispute and controversy about it, but in any event, the practice throughout Acts shows that is what the Apostles did----preach the Gospel and then baptize everyone who repented and believed the Gospel. It was always, believe and then be baptized. You may say that is because they were all adults, but that is what Matt. 28:19 is all about too, isn’t it? Maybe not you, but someone said it refers to adults.
**

When Jesus made that statement, he wasn’t referring to children as innocent. He was referring to the faith he saw in children. He was saying that we need to have the same approach to God/heaven that children have – total acceptance and dependence.

Very true----simple, childlike faith. Perhaps He wasn’t meaning their innocence. But I would still say that a child who has not reached the age of reason/discernment is not accountable for sin and in any event Jesus died for their sins, if any. So it would be by the grace and mercy of God and the fact that He died for their sins, coupled with their nonaccountability, that would lead me to say they go to heaven.

Beside, Phil, have you forgotten all about original sin in your declaration of children’s innocence? I agree that children can go to heaven based on God’s grace, but let us have none of this nonsence of calling any human being innocent. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God – that includes children and infants.

Also true. They would only be “innocent” in the sense that they are not accountable, i.e., their “sins” are not charged against them at that early age.

 

[Phil12123]

Then what do any of us need Jesus for? If we are born in total innocence, then surely it is our own problem if we later sin.

I thought we needed Jesus because we were BORN INTO sin, and did not have the ability to help ourselves.

**You’re right. We are born into sin, i.e., possessed of a sin nature that gives us the propensity to commit actual, personal sin. It is the latter sin that we need to repent of and be saved from. It doesn’t seem that we can “repent” of something we were born with (the sin nature), but the acts of sin that result from our following the sin nature (sins of the flesh) would need repentance and salvation.

You’re also right that we have no ability to help ourselves and we therefore need the Savior and all He did at Calvary to pay for our sins, as our sin remedy.

The question, however, was not concerning us, but children under the age of reason. The “innocence” of children is not that they do not possess a sin nature that leads them to commit personal sins. It is rather their nonaccountability until they reach the age of reason/discernment.
**

 

[onenow1]

HI, Phil

Quote= Phil,The question, however, was not concerning us, but children under the age of reason. The “innocence” of children is not that they do not possess a sin nature that leads them to commit personal sins. It is rather their nonaccountability until they reach the age of reason/discernment.

I think the problem here Phil is: we cannot repent of anyone elses sin original or otherwise and thats why baptism is efficacious.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[jmcrae]

**You’re right. We are born into sin, i.e., possessed of a sin nature that gives us the propensity to commit actual, personal sin. It is the latter sin that we need to repent of and be saved from. It doesn’t seem that we can “repent” of something we were born with (the sin nature), but the acts of sin that result from our following the sin nature (sins of the flesh) would need repentance and salvation.

You’re also right that we have no ability to help ourselves and we therefore need the Savior and all He did at Calvary to pay for our sins, as our sin remedy.

The question, however, was not concerning us, but children under the age of reason. The “innocence” of children is not that they do not possess a sin nature that leads them to commit personal sins. It is rather their nonaccountability until they reach the age of reason/discernment.
**

Children are born into Original Sin. Unless at some point they become Christians, they cannot be saved by Christ any more than an adult who does not become a Christian could be saved by Christ (ie: it is possible that they could be saved in an extraordinary manner that neither the Scriptures nor the Apostolic Tradition tell us anything about - but the ordinary means of salvation is to become a Christian, and the normal way to become a Christian is to get baptized).

Again, if we are born “saved” and then we lose our salvation by our own actions, then it is perfectly possible to retain our salvation by our own actions, as well - meaning that we don’t need Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

There are no pre-requisites for baptism, none, zero. Baptism removes original sin and the effects of that sin, confers sanctifying grace and marks one permanently as one of Christ’s own. Discipleship and baptism have no real connection. Discipleship comes from following Christ’s way, in a sense giving what has been given to us. Baptism is grace … a free gift.

Baptism shows the true genorisity of Christ … unmerited grace.

I think this is not right. A profession of faith is a pre-requisite for baptism. Baptism should not be given without it. this is why the Church does not baptize infants unless the parents are willing to make a promise to raise them in the faith. If discipleship and baptism have no real connection, why did Christ connect them in Matt. 28? He says to baptize the disciples…

However, I agree that baptism is an avenue of grace, a free gift. An appropriate response to that grace is a profession of faith.

 

[guanophore]

**No, I didn’t miss or ignore your comments on Mark’s ending. I want to do some more research on it. One source, for example, said 99% of the Mark manuscripts have the long ending, etc. I know there is a dispute and controversy about it, but in any event, the practice throughout Acts shows that is what the Apostles did----preach the Gospel and then baptize everyone who repented and believed the Gospel. It was always, believe and then be baptized. You may say that is because they were all adults, but that is what Matt. 28:19 is all about too, isn’t it? Maybe not you, but someone said it refers to adults.
**

Very true----simple, childlike faith. Perhaps He wasn’t meaning their innocence. But I would still say that a child who has not reached the age of reason/discernment is not accountable for sin and in any event Jesus died for their sins, if any. So it would be by the grace and mercy of God and the fact that He died for their sins, coupled with their nonaccountability, that would lead me to say they go to heaven.

Also true. They would only be “innocent” in the sense that they are not accountable, i.e., their “sins” are not charged against them at that early age.

I did say it was about adults, perhaps pre-maturely. The point was made that there were only adults coming into the church in the beginning. None of us are “innocent” before God, and although children before the age of reason are not accountable for their sins, they are still the recipients of the fallen nature as a result of original sin. For that reason, they cannot enter heaven. Although we do trust in God’s mercy on the fate of the unbaptized, we recognize that baptism is the normative means by which God has instructed us to wash away the stain of sins.

 

[guanophore]

**No, I didn’t miss or ignore your comments on Mark’s ending. I want to do some more research on it. One source, for example, said 99% of the Mark manuscripts have the long ending, etc. I know there is a dispute and controversy about it, but in any event, the practice throughout Acts shows that is what the Apostles did----preach the Gospel and then baptize everyone who repented and believed the Gospel. It was always, believe and then be baptized. You may say that is because they were all adults, but that is what Matt. 28:19 is all about too, isn’t it? Maybe not you, but someone said it refers to adults.
**

Very true----simple, childlike faith. Perhaps He wasn’t meaning their innocence. But I would still say that a child who has not reached the age of reason/discernment is not accountable for sin and in any event Jesus died for their sins, if any. So it would be by the grace and mercy of God and the fact that He died for their sins, coupled with their nonaccountability, that would lead me to say they go to heaven.

Also true. They would only be “innocent” in the sense that they are not accountable, i.e., their “sins” are not charged against them at that early age.

I did say it was about adults, perhaps pre-maturely. The point was made that there were only adults coming into the church in the beginning. None of us are “innocent” before God, and although children before the age of reason are not accountable for their sins, they are still the recipients of the fallen nature as a result of original sin. For that reason, they cannot enter heaven. Although we do trust in God’s mercy on the fate of the unbaptized, we recognize that baptism is the normative means by which God has instructed us to wash away the stain of sins.

**You’re right. We are born into sin, i.e., possessed of a sin nature that gives us the propensity to commit actual, personal sin. It is the latter sin that we need to repent of and be saved from. It doesn’t seem that we can “repent” of something we were born with (the sin nature), but the acts of sin that result from our following the sin nature (sins of the flesh) would need repentance and salvation.

You’re also right that we have no ability to help ourselves and we therefore need the Savior and all He did at Calvary to pay for our sins, as our sin remedy.

The question, however, was not concerning us, but children under the age of reason. The “innocence” of children is not that they do not possess a sin nature that leads them to commit personal sins. It is rather their nonaccountability until they reach the age of reason/discernment.
**

Recognizing this, why would one NOT want to baptize them as soon as possible, so that the bondage to the sin nature could be broken?

 

[Phil12123]

I did say it was about adults, perhaps pre-maturely. The point was made that there were only adults coming into the church in the beginning. None of us are “innocent” before God, and although children before the age of reason are not accountable for their sins, they are still the recipients of the fallen nature as a result of original sin. For that reason, they cannot enter heaven. Although we do trust in God’s mercy on the fate of the unbaptized, we recognize that baptism is the normative means by which God has instructed us to wash away the stain of sins.

I disagree that a baby’s sin nature in and of itself keeps it out of heaven. Would you say the millions of innocent (yes, I will use that word) aborted babies are kept out of heaven because they were never baptized? Tell me what kind of God you believe in who will have their souls in the lake of fire for an eternity because they never had some ritual performed, words said, water sprinkled, etc.

**It is only the blood of Christ that washes away sin, not water. The water may be a sign, symbol, or representation of His blood’s cleansing but that is all. Those of the age of reason have their sins washed away when they repent and put their faith in the One Who shed His blood and rose again. The water merely symbolizes what His blood has already done, as well as to identify the new believer with the other believers and their community of faith. Those who are under the age of reason and have no capacity to repent and have faith in Him, are IMHO as fit for heaven as the new believer.
**

 

[NotWorthy]

**I disagree that a baby’s sin nature in and of itself keeps it out of heaven. Would you say the millions of innocent (yes, I will use that word) aborted babies are kept out of heaven because they were never baptized? Tell me what kind of God you believe in who will have their souls in the lake of fire for an eternity because they never had some ritual performed, words said, water sprinkled, etc.**The Beloved Church doesn’t know what happens to these babies. She trusts in the mercy of God, but she doesn’t presume to know what God does for these children. She does understand that St. Paul makes it clear that sin comes to all of us through Adam, but She still holds out faith in God’s Love.

To presume to know what God does with these poor souls would be placing ourselves in the Judgment Seat, though.

**

It is only the blood of Christ that washes away sin, not water. The water may be a sign, symbol, or representation of His blood’s cleansing but that is all. Those of the age of reason have their sins washed away when they repent and put their faith in the One Who shed His blood and rose again. The water merely symbolizes what His blood has already done, as well as to identify the new believer with the other believers and their community of faith. Those who are under the age of reason and have no capacity to repent and have faith in Him, are IMHO as fit for heaven as the new believer.

**As the Gospel plainly says, Water is the Means that Christ uses to wash away our sins in His Blood.

So, Phil is able to have a humble opinion, but the 2000 year old Church is not?!?

 

[mercygate]

**It is only the blood of Christ that washes away sin, not water. The water may be a sign, symbol, or representation of His blood’s cleansing but that is all. **

Hmmm. But water gushed from His side as well as blood. Sounds to me like a package deal.

 

[ncgolf]

Hmmm. But water gushed from His side as well as blood. Sounds to me like a package deal.

It was symbolic water.

 

[mercygate]

The question here is: Did the Apostles practice the faith as Jesus commanded?

If we believe they did, and they baptized infants (which the testimony of the early Church testifies in several documents), then we must believe that the practice was understood as consistent with Our Lord’s teaching. No need for 900 posts discussing it.

The quesion could not have arisen except among people who have disconnected themselves from the mind of Christ.

 

[MariaG]

Me to Grace Seeker: So, you think He left it wide open? Baptize anyone? Believers and nonbelievers alike? Baptize atheists and agnostics and skeptics and anyone you want to? What? With the hope that maybe some day they might just become believers in Christ and the Gospel? Is that what you think?

MariaG: Nope, He did not leave it wideopen. That is why scripture speaks of “You and your household”.

Have you ever heard of tearing something out of its context and making it say something that was never intended? That is what you have done with “you and your household.” That verse (Acts 16:31) deals with believing to be saved and has nothing to do with baptism. The most you can make of that verse is, if the jailor believes in Jesus, he and his entire household will be saved. That is doing an incredible injustice to that verse. But in any event, it does not say anything about baptizing infants.

**

I disagree. And so do the Early Church Fathers.

MariaG: We cannot help it if you choose to follow an interpretation that was nowhere in Christian history

, even that of the Reformers.

Would you like me to re-quote Tertullian for you?

Yeah, maybe you should. You are right, it was in Christian history, I was wrong. It shows that forbidding infant baptism was a new teaching that Tertullian was espousing and was settled in favor of CONTINUING infant baptism. Not starting infant baptism, for Tertullian was arguing against an apstolic teaching, ie a teaching that was already in place.

Tertullian shows that the only place in Christian History were infant baptism was disavowed was those who argued against CONTINUING that very same practice. And his arguments were found wanting by those who were led by the Holy Spirit.

MariaG: Baptism replaced circumcision. It is the circumcision of the heart. God chooses to work through the hands of men and water to apply the saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice. How do we know this? Through faith.

No, it is through faith and by the grace of God that the saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice is applied to men (Eph. 2:8-9), not through water and the hands of men.

Because Phil says so? Who are you to say how God chooses to apply His saving Grace, especially when what you say contradicts the Earliest Christian writings on this subject?

Because they are innocent of any personal sin and therefore have nothing that would keep them out of heaven. Jesus said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” referring to that innocence.

Others have addressed this Phil. Scripture does not agree with this interpretation.

Although we can pray and hope for the mercy of God, we cannot presume upon it, and by failing to follow Jesus’s instructions, passed down through His Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth, we are certainly presuming upon His perfect mercy.

Just as you say there is no explicit scripture on infant baptism, which we agree that there is no explicit scripture, there is absolutely no explicit scripture as to what happens to infants and children who are not “believers” and have not received baptism.

**

 

[Grace_Seeker]

It was symbolic water.

The only symbolism embodied in that “water” was the demonstratable sign that Jesus was actually dead. Besides the term “water” used there is a euphamism, like when a person “makes water”. It is referring to a bodily fluid, not H2O. In Jesus’ case the blood had separated into its constituent parts and the rather clear liquid was not water but actually the blood serum that carries the red corpusles.

Many things in scripture are symbolic and intended to be spirituallize, but not everything. Something are simply descriptive events. Though you may wish to transfer that concept to baptism, I do not believe it is something the gospel writer had in his mind in writing of that event.

 

[MariaG]

The question here is: Did the Apostles practice the faith as Jesus commanded?

If we believe they did, and they baptized infants (which the testimony of the early Church testifies in several documents), then we must believe that the practice was understood as consistent with Our Lord’s teaching. No need for 900 posts discussing it.

The quesion could not have arisen except among people who have disconnected themselves from the mind of Christ.

Yes, unfortunately, those same people will continue to ignore the teachings of the early Church because it doesn’t fit with their theology of their individual church.

If I believed that baptism was only a sign, (and this were actually true), then clearly baptism doesn’t save, and it would make no sense to baptize infants.

But since I do not agree(And neither does the consensus of writings from the ECF) that baptism is only a sign, but when God chooses to apply His free gift of saving Grace available to all, it only makes sense to baptize infants as the early Church, (and Martin Luther did)