Purpose for Infant Baptisms

[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?

INFANT BAPTISM PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE

Old Covenant

Genesis 17:9-14
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Leviticus 12:3
3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.

These texts show the circumcision of eight-day-old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant.

Connection to New Covenant

Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the new “circumcision of Christ” for all people of the New Covenant.

Do Infants Need Baptism?

Job 14:1-4
1 "Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. 2 He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure. 3 Do you fix your eye on such a one? Will you bring him before you for judgment? 4 Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!

Psalm 51:5
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

We are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the need for baptism from the moment of conception.

Jesus Extols Child-like Faith

Matthew 18:2-5
2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Jesus Receives Little Children and Infants

Matt 19:13-15
13Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Mark 10:13-16
13People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Luke 18:15-17
15People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Church Begins to Preach Baptism

Acts 2:38-39
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Peter did not say, “Every one of you adults”; he said, “Every one of you” without qualification and added “the promise (of the Holy Spirit) is for you and your children”. Baptism and the Holy Spirit are frequently connected throughout the Bible (cf. Ez. 36:25-27, Mt. 3:16, Jn. 3:5).

Acts 10:47-48
Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius which probably included infants and young children. There is not one word in this passage (or any other in scripture) about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15
13On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home.

Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children. Further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.

 

[diggerdomer]

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

All? Newborn infants have sinned? The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that.

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

Baptism is a Sacrament. It is an outward sign of an inward grace.

The parents put a child through this Sacrament because it is something good for the child. Would you not give good things to your children?

It is part of a child growing up process in its family in the Catholic Church.

Why is there such a big problem in giving Baptism to a child? He will make decision on his own once he knows how to make decisions. But parents cannot withhold grace from a child when the Church stipulates that it can receive that grace.

I think a big misunderstanding on your part is you do not understand what a Sacrament is in Catholic context in the first place; not so much infant Baptism as an issue.

In the old covenant, an infant was circumcised. In the new, a child is baptized. Do you think circumcision was being forced on the infant too?

 

[crazzeto]

All? Newborn infants have sinned? The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that.

Original Sin?

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml

The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation, and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative LANGUAGE, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many [that is, all men] were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. . . ."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

 

[diggerdomer]

Original Sin?

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml

So you agree, with me, the Church does not teach that newborn infants have sinned.

Thanks.

 

[eliasaph99]

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.

On the other hand, they have done nothing to warrant reward either.

If you’re going to attempt to reduce the situation to a tit for tat, then this is just as obvious and relevant an observation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

What irony.

crazzeto uses “all have sinned” the same way that Paul did, and you call him on it.

Let’s review.

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Right - but he said “begotten not conceived”.

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?

The New Covenant is superior to the old. Both males and females are brought into the New Covenant through the new rite of initiation, baptism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Are you suggesting that the ONLY difference between men and women are their genitals?

Is a man who has been emmasculated in war or accident not a man?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you agree, with me, the Church does not teach that newborn infants have sinned.

Thanks.

Newborn infants cannot commit personal sins. They are sinners, however, in the sense that they have inherited original sin.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

That is what they believe.

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.

Actually, what would be just would be for God to send all of us to hell for our disobedience to Him. Instead, He sent His own son to die so that we might live.

That is what is unjust.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

I see.

Do I withhold citizenship in the United States from my children until they are old enough to accept the constitution as their personal form of government?

No. My children benefit from being US citizens even though they have not made a personal decision to defend and support our nation, its laws and its government.

BTW, the Jews were no different - they did not wait to circumcise their male children until they were old enough to accept the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as adults. They obeyed God and circumcised them on the eighth day as God commanded.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

And now here is my question for you, my LDS friend:

When you research ancient genealogies to uncover the names of people long dead in order to be baptized for them, are you giving them the freedom of choice?

Using your own argument:

“You force baptism on [the dead] instead of allowing [them]…[to] make a decision for themselves, or be agent unto themselves.”

 

[diggerdomer]

Newborn infants cannot commit personal sins. They are sinners, however, in the sense that they have inherited original sin.

I just don’t think having inherited original sin, or being subject to its effects (whatever–the point being that one is in need of God’s grace to overcome it) is the same as saying one is a
“sinner” the way most people would understand that term. Naming someone a sinner implies, I think, personal agency (freedom, intent, will, knowledge, etc.).

I agree with you, my main point was the concern that some people might think infants can commit personal sin. They can’t. Thanks.

 

[thecourt]

I see.

Do I withhold citizenship in the United States from my children until they are old enough to accept the constitution as their personal form of government?

No. My children benefit from being US citizens even though they have not made a personal decision to defend and support our nation, its laws and its government.

BTW, the Jews were no different - they did not wait to circumcise their male children until they were old enough to accept the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as adults. They obeyed God and circumcised them on the eighth day as God commanded.

The point I continue to make is when one is interested in the how their fallen state matters to them, they will make the choice to be taught about it, baptized by holding the proper authority.

With regards to infants, how have parents allowed their children to make a choice their fallen state matters to them when the infant can not speak for itself?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The point I continue to make is when one is interested in the how their fallen state matters to them, they will make the choice to be taught about it, baptized by holding the proper authority.

With regards to infants, how have parents allowed their children to make a choice their fallen state matters to them when the infant can not speak for itself?

Did God command the Jews to give their sons a choice?

Do you give the dead a choice when you are baptized for them?

 

[thecourt]

Did God command the Jews to give their sons a choice?

Do you give the dead a choice when you are baptized for them?

The dead, and again if folks knew what we actually believe versus spreading misinformation, are preached to in the estate of where they are now before we all are resurrected, which is gift given to all regardless if they were righteous or not. Basically missionary work is going there, allowing them to make a choice. This is one reason we do work for the dead. If God is just and no respector of persons, everyone has to have a fair opportunity to be baptized.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The dead, and again if folks knew what we actually believe versus spreading misinformation, are preached to in the estate of where they are now before we all are resurrected, which is gift given to all regardless if they were righteous or not. Basically missionary work is going there, allowing them to make a choice. This is one reason we do work for the dead. If God is just and no respector of persons, everyone has to have a fair opportunity to be baptized.

Friend, if I have spread misinformation about your beliefs and practices, please show me where.

I’m happy to learn more about this. Here are a couple of my initial questions:

1. Are Mormons baptized for the dead? Do you have their permission to do this for them? If so, how is this determined, and what do you do when a dead person says, “No, thanks”?
2. When are these dead presented with the gospel and exactly how is that done?

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

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.

Hi gearhead, welcome to CAF.
I’m not clear on your objections to baptism and circumcision. Circumcision, in particular, is clearly mandated in Holy Scripture as a direct commandment from God to the descendants of Abraham. It is really quite unambiguous. I guess what I don’t understand is, what is the basis of your objection? It is really very well grounded scripturally. Would some citations help clarify the scriptural basis for it?