Purpose for Infant Baptisms

[jmcrae]

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.

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.

See, and again - Hell is not a “punishment” for “doing something bad” - it is simply the “not with God” place - the place where we are, before we are with God, or if we have parted company with God.

Hell also happens to be a very uncomfortable place to end up, but most of the people who go there aren’t “bad” people - they are just people who for whatever reason either never had a relationship with God, or had one and then lost it by neglect, or else deliberately rejected it.

Heaven is not a birthright. Only those who have entered into a relationship with God on His terms actually get there. Keep in mind that before Jesus died on the Cross, human beings were not even able to go to Heaven at all. It was Christ’s human nature, when He took it with Him into Heaven, that made it possible for human beings to go to Heaven. (Since if not, then Christ Himself, being 100% human in the Incarnation, could not have returned to Heaven after the Resurrection.)

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

The Church does not “force” baptism any more than the Church forces parents to feed and care for their infants (or should we wait until they’re old enough to feed themselves before giving them nutrition?).

Also, baptism is administered to infants with the understanding that they will be raised in the faith, which of course includes being raised to make continually more mature and responsible decisions regarding their faith as they are able. Infant baptism in no way denies that people should make decisions for themsleves; quite the contrary.

 

[gelsbern]

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.

So you are saying that one must know about their fallen state before God can save them? Seems to be putting a limit on the grace of God. As far as free will, when a child reaches the age of reason, they have free will to reject God. In the meantime the soul of that child is the responsibility of the parents. If that were not the case, then severely developmentally disabled individuals would never find salvation because it would be possible that they would never “understand” their own fallen nature. To me that puts a limit on the mercy of God.

Are there any other limits you wish to place upon God?

 

[jmcrae]

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.

What I don’t understand is why you would leave your child on the path to Hell - why give the child any choice in the matter, when they are too little to know anything? For as long as it is up to me, my kid is going to Heaven, so I baptize her. If later when she reaches the age of accountability she chooses to sin and thus sets her feet on the road to Hell, then she has made her free choice (and even then I would do everything possible to convince her to seek Reconciliation) but why should my child be required to go to Hell merely because she has not yet reached the age where she can sense her fallen nature and choose for herself to be baptized?

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Then, why aren’t you living in the Garden of Eden with God?

 

[Scottgun]

Because of Adam and Eve’s fall, man is born without sanctifying grace, which God does not owe us. It would be like if your parents drained their checking account, frittered the money then died leaving you with nothing. You can moan about how you didn’t do anything wrong all day long, but every time you go to the ATM, it’s coming back “NSF”. Baptism gives sanctifying grace, which of course as one gets older can be thrown away as well. This objection for leaving the Church is weaksauce.

 

[thecourt]

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?

Part of what you stated I differ with you about — this is one of the reasons our temples exist. The unbaptized have a choice in the state they are after death to be baptized, by proxy by someone who lives now. If what you said was true, how is God just for those who of no choice of their own to receive of the same blessings of exaltation that you and I can if because they were not given a choice because of death, never being the gospel.

 

[crazzeto]

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 have sinned, from conception with a single exception of course (not counting persons Begotton not Conceived).

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=52&ch=5&l=12&f=s#x

12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

 

[gearhead]

All have sinned, from conception with a single exception of course (not counting persons Begotton not Conceived).

Them and Mary, right? Wasn’t she conceived sinless? Immaculate conception and all that.

 

[jmcrae]

Them and Mary, right? Wasn’t she conceived sinless? Immaculate conception and all that.

That’s who he was referring to - Mary is the one conceived without sin. Jesus is an uncreated being, but I think He was conceived into His humanity, so He also would have been conceived without sin.

John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb, so he was born without sin, but not conceived without sin.

 

[Ignatius]

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?

As St. Paul the Apostle tells us in the Holy Scripture, Baptism is the new Circumcision. Just as circumcision was the means of entry to the People of God (Israel) in the Old Testament so Baptism is the means of entry to People of God (The Catholic Church) for the New Testament. This is also when the child is dedicated to Jesus Christ for the sanctification of their souls and invoke the protection of of Jesus Christ. Something any responsible parent should do for their Child.

 

[gearhead]

That’s who he was referring to - Mary is the one conceived without sin.

Right - but he said “begotten not conceived”.

As St. Paul the Apostle tells us in the Holy Scripture, Baptism is the new Circumcision. Just as circumcision was the means of entry to the People of God (Israel) in the Old Testament so Baptism is the means of entry to People of God (The Catholic Church) for the New Testament.

In one respect, this makes sense: dunking a child in water to make God happy does make about as much intuitive sense as cutting off the child’s foreskin to make God happy.

I’ve wondered about one thing, though: if baptism is the new circumcision, why baptize girls?

 

[jmcrae]

Right - but he said “begotten not conceived”.

Yes, I know. The wording of it was kind of strange.

In one respect, this makes sense: dunking a child in water to make God happy does make about as much intuitive sense as cutting off the child’s foreskin to make God happy.

I’ve wondered about one thing, though: if baptism is the new circumcision, why baptize girls?

Because in Christ there is no longer Jew nor Greek, nor male nor female, nor slave nor free. Everyone can be baptized.

 

[gearhead]

Because in Christ there is no longer Jew nor Greek, nor male nor female, nor slave nor free. Everyone can be baptized.

Hmm. Odd that there would be neither “male nor female” in Christ as infants, because apparently “male” and “female” sneak in somehow by the time the kids are old enough to be ordained as priests.

 

[jmcrae]

Hmm. Odd that there would be neither “male nor female” in Christ as infants, because apparently “male” and “female” sneak in somehow by the time the kids are old enough to be ordained as priests.

The priest is “in persona Christi” which means that he “stands in” for Christ in much the same way that an actor stands in for the character he is playing, where the lines that the actor recites are the actual words that that character is actually saying, in the story. The difference is that while the character isn’t “acting through” the actor (and the Sacraments are not “stories” as such), Jesus is actually “acting through” the priest and actually doing what the priest is representing - but the principle is very similar.

When they start hiring female actors to play Jesus in the movies (other than farces), perhaps we can then start to consider having women to be priests.

 

[gearhead]

The priest is “in persona Christi” which means that he “stands in” for Christ in much the same way that an actor stands in for the character he is playing, where the lines that the actor recites are the actual words that that character is actually saying, in the story. The difference is that while the character isn’t “acting through” the actor (and the Sacraments are not “stories” as such), Jesus is actually “acting through” the priest and actually doing what the priest is representing - but the principle is very similar.

Jesus was lots of things: divine, God, presumably good, a Jew, brown-haired (in most interpretations), etc., etc. I find it odd that you’d seize the genitalia (well, not literally - but you know what I mean) as the key characteristic that makes someone Christlike.

When they start hiring female actors to play Jesus in the movies (other than farces), perhaps we can then start to consider having women to be priests.

At the Catholic Church down the street from me, one priest is African and another is Philipino. I’ve never seen an African or Philipino actor play Jesus in a movie… except for farces, as you pointed out.

Oh… wait - the Madonna “Like a Prayer” video. That had a black Jesus. Still, no Philipinos. Not even one.

 

[crazzeto]

Them and Mary, right? Wasn’t she conceived sinless? Immaculate conception and all that.

The virgin mary is unique in her Immaculate Conception, yes. As you point out later I did indeed specify “not counting persons Begotton not Conceived”, because Jesus was begotton, not conceived but of course was also with out sin from the very start.

 

[jmcrae]

Jesus was lots of things: divine, God, presumably good, a Jew, brown-haired (in most interpretations), etc., etc. I find it odd that you’d seize the genitalia (well, not literally - but you know what I mean) as the key characteristic that makes someone Christlike.

Christ was not born male by accident. His death on the Cross was specifically in order to reverse the sin of Adam, the first male human being, in exactly the same way that Mary’s “yes” to God reversed Eve’s “yes” to the Devil, which were the events that set both Adam’s sin and Christ’s redemptive act in motion.

 

[crazzeto]

Christ was not born male by accident. His death on the Cross was specifically in order to reverse the sin of Adam, the first male human being, in exactly the same way that Mary’s “yes” to God reversed Eve’s “yes” to the Devil, which were the events that set both Adam’s sin and Christ’s redemptive act in motion.

Yes, Christ is the 2nd Adam who through his obediance undid Adam’s disobedence

As the Virgin Mary is the 2nd Eve, doing the same with regard to Eve.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Infants Need Salvation Proved From Scripture

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalm 58:3
The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies.

Genesis 8:21
And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.”

Job 14:4
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.

Job 15:14-15
What is man, that he can be clean? Or he that is born of a woman, that he can be righteous? Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones, and the heavens are not clean in his sight;

Ephesians 2:3
Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

John 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.