Purpose for Infant Baptisms

[thecourt]

Infants have committed no sins and certainly do not understand accountability relative to sins committed so why are infant baptisms common in Catholicism? Accountability means they understand the difference between what is right and wrong and choose to do what is right or wrong so again how can Catholicism justify this going on?

 

[NPC]

I suggest you look at what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about infant baptism. The Catechism provides frequent references to sources for the Church’s teachings - Scripture and Early Church Fathers, for example.

"The Baptism of infants

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."

The Early Fathers of the Church also provide good evidence for infant baptism since the early days of the Church.

For Example:

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

 

[diggerdomer]

Infants have committed no sins and certainly do not understand accountability relative to sins committed so why are infant baptisms common in Catholicism? Accountability means they understand the difference between what is right and wrong and choose to do what is right or wrong so again how can Catholicism justify this going on?

John 3:5

Baptism not only washes away sin, it also incorporates/welcomes one into the Body of Christ (the people of God), conforms one to new life in Christ through water and the Spirit, anoints one a member of Christ as priest, prophet, and king.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Infants have committed no sins and certainly do not understand accountability relative to sins committed so why are infant baptisms common in Catholicism? Accountability means they understand the difference between what is right and wrong and choose to do what is right or wrong so again how can Catholicism justify this going on?

All people are born with original sin. Baptism takes that away.

 

[thecourt]

All people are born with original sin. Baptism takes that away.

So according to the Cathecism and what you folks have said, I must be held accountable for a sin I did not commit? That on its face makes no sense, you profess it is true. This is why, among other doctrinal reasons, I had to seek the truth away from Catholicism.

 

[jmcrae]

Infants have committed no sins and certainly do not understand accountability relative to sins committed so why are infant baptisms common in Catholicism? Accountability means they understand the difference between what is right and wrong and choose to do what is right or wrong so again how can Catholicism justify this going on?

Why in the world would you not baptize your child? Only the most unloving parent would leave her own child in the bondage of sin, and forbid him from becoming of the same religion as the rest of the family until he passes some kind of a test.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So according to the Cathecism and what you folks have said, I must be held accountable for a sin I did not commit? That on its face makes no sense, you profess it is true. This is why, among other doctrinal reasons, I had to seek the truth away from Catholicism.

w
What were you before you became a Mormon?

 

[jmcrae]

So according to the Cathecism and what you folks have said, I must be held accountable for a sin I did not commit?

You are not “accountable” for Adam’s sin; however, you are affected by it, just as the grandchild of a gambling addict loses his inheritance before there is anything he can do about it.

Baptism washes away the effects of Adam’s sin on your soul, and joins you to Christ through His Church. We were driven into spiritual poverty by Adam’s sin, but we are made rich again in Christ, by means of baptism.

 

[gearhead]

All people are born with original sin. Baptism takes that away.

If that were true, then why would the child of baptized parents need to be baptized? Original sin was “taken away” from the parents, right? So then how did it come back again? Was the grace of the parents’ baptisms somehow insufficient?

So according to the Cathecism and what you folks have said, I must be held accountable for a sin I did not commit? That on its face makes no sense, you profess it is true. This is why, among other doctrinal reasons, I had to seek the truth away from Catholicism.

It makes no sense to me either. I can’t reconcile the idea of original sin with the idea of a good, just and loving god.

Why in the world would you not baptize your child? Only the most unloving parent would leave her own child in the bondage of sin, and forbid him from becoming of the same religion as the rest of the family until he passes some kind of a test.

“Some kind of test” like pouring water on the child?

Here’s my problem with infant baptism: when you look at it in the context of all the other Catholic ideas like original sin, the goodness of God and hell, you get something like this:

“this baby is such an intrinsically evil little ball of sin that he could very well deserve to suffer excruciating torment for eternity. If the child ended up this way, I’m sure that his fate would have been completely justified. So, to make the child not be such an evil creature, we’re going to fix him by pouring water on him in a special way.”

The “fix him by pouring water on him” bit is kinda silly, but the first part… I don’t see how any parent could look on their newborn baby and see him in that way. I don’t think it’s a view I’d ever be able to endorse personally.

 

[gearhead]

You are not “accountable” for Adam’s sin; however, you are affected by it, just as the grandchild of a gambling addict loses his inheritance before there is anything he can do about it.

But to go with your analogy for a bit, regardless of what the grandparent did, when his child is baptized, he gets back his “inheritance”… so where did it disappear to between the child and the grandchild?

 

[jmcrae]

“Some kind of test” like pouring water on the child?

No - like having to wait until he has reached “the age of accountability” and can say the right words to prove he is a Christian, before being allowed to be baptized, and thus be able to go to Heaven if he dies.

"this baby is such an intrinsically evil little ball of sin that he could very well deserve to suffer excruciating torment for eternity.

Because of the sin of Adam, the default destination of all human beings, without “being evil” and indeed without doing anything at all, is Hell. You do not have to be a “bad person” to go to Hell; you simply have to not be good. (God may have some kind of a back-up plan for those who don’t get baptized, but if so, He has not revealed it to us - the normal means to get into Heaven is to be a baptized member of Christ’s Church.)

As human beings, we have a tendency to confuse “cute” with “good.” The child may well be cute as a button, but he does not become “good” until he is baptized. We also have a tendency to define “good” as the absence of evil - in reality, it is the other way around - “evil” is the absence of good.

It is by means of Christ’s work on the Cross, which is poured out on us at Baptism, that we change our destination from Hell to Heaven. After that, when we reach the “age of accountability” we are certainly free to change our destination again, to Hell, simply by consciously committing a grave sin - and then we can change it back to Heaven again, by making use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[gelsbern]

So according to the Cathecism and what you folks have said, I must be held accountable for a sin I did not commit? That on its face makes no sense, you profess it is true. This is why, among other doctrinal reasons, I had to seek the truth away from Catholicism.

First let me state, I am not Catholic, however I am catholic.

Now as to the issue of accountability, I don’t think anyone here has said one is held accountable for not being baptized. From scripture we know that all are born fallen with sinful natures. We know that sin cannot enter heaven and we know that only that sin is cleaned through the grace of God and we know that baptism conveys that grace and cleanses us from sin. We also know that God is infinitely merciful, and how he chooses to deal with the unbaptized is something we cannot know while we are on this earth. Would an infant be held accountable for not being baptized? We hope not, but we cannot say. Same can be said for an adult. The final destination of an unbaptised person is merely our speculation based upon what God has chosen to reveal but we acknowledge the fact that God is the ultimate judge. However because of what we know about sin and our salvation, we put to practice what has been revealed to us and therefore baptize everyone, including infants.

With that being said we have to look at the nature of all the sacraments in the church. Every sacrament has a dual role. The first being a sign, the second a conveyance of grace.

The Eucharist is a sign of our remembering the sacrifice of our Lord, but it also conveys the grace of God.

Penance, is a sign of our repentance and our desire to be reconciled with God, but it also conveys grace because we are absolved of our sins.

Marriage is a sign of a couple’s commitment to one another to live their life as husband and wife, but it also conveys the grace of God to live that life faithfully.

So every sacrament is a sign AND conveys grace.

Let’s look at sacrament of baptism.

In the Jewish faith, circumcision is the ritual that a person underwent when becoming a member of Judaism. A child at his briss, becomes a member of the Jewish church. Circumcision is the sign that that child belongs. For Christians, we know from scripture that circumcision is no longer a requirement to be a member of the Church. Instead baptism is used to bring members in to the church. In scripture we read where entire families were baptized by the apostles. We can speculate that this would have included the infants as well. As Christians (of any denomination) it is baptism that is the sign that the person is a member of the body of Christ.

We also know baptism gives grace through the washing away of sin. Through baptism, we become clean, and acceptable receptacles for the graces that God wishes to bestow on us. This happens to an adult, AND it happens for an infant and requires nothing on either the adults part or on the infants part.

So C(c)atholics all believe in infant baptism because it is a sign that the child is a member of the church and it conveys the grace that comes with having a pure soul.

With that in mind, why would anyone want to exclude a child from being a member of Christ’s church and deny them the graces that God wishes to bestow upon them?

 

[thecourt]

w
What were you before you became a Mormon?

I was Catholic. The distinction that separates us is this — we all recognize that as descendants of Adam and Eve we are in a fallen condition — my profession is I separated from God because of my own, for example if this were the case, living my life with no recognition of my fallen state in the probationary time called life.

Someone said why would I not baptize a infant — the only exception would be in the temple, by proxy for that infant, keeping the infant linked to its family. That would be important. Not as a infant (the key distinction between Mormons and Catholics), growing up and then having to decide for its self if it will recognize its fallen state, be baptized, by the proper authority, when he or she understands they have agency, or freedom to choose right or wrong and will be accountable for what they do after baptism.

 

[gelsbern]

I … growing up and then having to decide for its self if it will recognize its fallen state…

This comes through the grace of God, not through our own doing. Our fallen nature acts as a roadblock to that grace. Baptism removes that roadblock and makes it easier for God to give us the grace to realize our fallen natures. It seems to me that it is better to remove the roadblock as soon as possible so that one could live a holy life, rather than hope that somehow someway, the person discovers it before it’s too late.

 

[gearhead]

No - like having to wait until he has reached “the age of accountability” and can say the right words to prove he is a Christian, before being allowed to be baptized, and thus be able to go to Heaven if he dies.

AFAIK, most denominations that practice “believer’s baptism” don’t believe that baptism itself saves… rather, they believe that faith saves, and that baptism is an outward expression of an inward faith that’s already present.

Because of the sin of Adam, the default destination of all human beings, without “being evil” and indeed without doing anything at all, is Hell. You do not have to be a “bad person” to go to Hell; you simply have to not be good.

Sounds like your God must be an unjust god to have set up an arrangement like this. If a person has done nothing bad, then that person has done nothing to warrant punishment.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

But to go with your analogy for a bit, regardless of what the grandparent did, when his child is baptized, he gets back his “inheritance”… so where did it disappear to between the child and the grandchild?

We are all born with a tendancy to sin. Even little kids can do some pretty naughty stuff!

Baptism is a sacrament. But even more than even removing symbolically the taint of Adam’s sin, it is bringing the infant into the protective care of Jesus and his Church. A child who is not baptised is more easily preyed apon by Satan and his legions.

 

[gearhead]

We are all born with a tendancy to sin. Even little kids can do some pretty naughty stuff!

So, then, our “poverty” isn’t so much about what any of our ancestors did, it’s just the way everyone is born, right?

Otherwise, it seems like you have a contradiction: on the one hand, you’ve got Adam’s “sin” tainting all of humanity, which says to me that humans have an ability to influence our fundamental natures. However, at the same time, you’ve got the idea that nothing anyone can do can get rid of that “taint”, indicating that humans don’t have an ability to influence our fundamental natures.

But wait… I suppose original sin was Adam’s doing, but erasing it is Christ’s. Is Christ less powerful than Adam?

Baptism is a sacrament. But even more than even removing symbolically the taint of Adam’s sin, it is bringing the infant into the protective care of Jesus and his Church. A child who is not baptised is more easily preyed apon by Satan and his legions.

So Jesus won’t protect babies from Satan unless they’ve been baptized? That seems rather heartless of him; effectively, he’s abandoning more than two-thirds the children of the world to the forces of evil.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So, then, our “poverty” isn’t so much about what any of our ancestors did, it’s just the way everyone is born, right?

Otherwise, it seems like you have a contradiction: on the one hand, you’ve got Adam’s “sin” tainting all of humanity, which says to me that humans have an ability to influence our fundamental natures. However, at the same time, you’ve got the idea that nothing anyone can do can get rid of that “taint”, indicating that humans don’t have an ability to influence our fundamental natures.

But wait… I suppose original sin was Adam’s doing, but erasing it is Christ’s. Is Christ less powerful than Adam?

So Jesus won’t protect babies from Satan unless they’ve been baptized? That seems rather heartless of him; effectively, he’s abandoning more than two-thirds the children of the world to the forces of evil.

Yep. It’s a scary place out there. If you don’t believe in Christ, you are really unprotected from the forces of evil.

 

[Josh128]

Luke 18:15-16 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying," ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’"

Acts 16:30-33 -And bringing them out, he said: Masters, what must I do, that I may be saved? But they said: believe in the Lord Jesus: and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house.
And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes: and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

Acts 2:36-39 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Peter, and Paul especially, baptized entire households in several accounts in the Bible.

Origen wrote in A.D. 244 : “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 ).

The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth.

The great St. Augustine wrote in A.D. 408: “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 ).

 

[thecourt]

This comes through the grace of God, not through our own doing. Our fallen nature acts as a roadblock to that grace. Baptism removes that roadblock and makes it easier for God to give us the grace to realize our fallen natures. It seems to me that it is better to remove the roadblock as soon as possible so that one could live a holy life, rather than hope that somehow someway, the person discovers it before it’s too late.

We recognize the fallen state — my profession has been infant DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT FALLEN STATE so they must be baptized WITHOUT the opportunity for its self that it 1) in the fallen state and 2) allow the Atonement of Jesus Christ to have it effect so one may decide it is matter or not they are in the fallen state.

I would guess Catholics believe in agency or what you may call free will ---- how has a infant exercised free will or agency (freedom to choose) to any allowance of changing the fallen state it is in, when I understand Catholicism’ s view, the infant has no choice – their fallen state is forced upon them without in regard for it, when it could understand that he or she is in a fallen state and must choose to allow the Atonement to have its effects on him or her or not.

That why we teach that a child, once they are a age of understanding, can be taught they are in this fallen state and decide it baptism is important or not. My issue with Catholics is that you force baptism on infants instead of allowing the child, when they can understand their fallen state and make a decision for themselves, or be agent unto themselves.

A choice was introduced by the devil, that is to partake of the fruit, otherwise Adam and Eve would have done as God had commanded them, never nothing they had a choice otherwise — that is the key distinction with Catholicism.