Question about infant baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Asimis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Asimis

Guest
Greetings,

I am discussing with an atheist in another forum and he posted the following:
A sixty minute ceremony is the only difference between baby A and baby B. The babies have no choice in the matter. So what moral basis does He use for granting one child the gift and not the other? Forget whether God has to give the gift. You think he’s the ultimate authority, i.e. he doesn’t have to do anything. But what reasons does he have? Any reasons he has have nothing to do with the child. They are both his creation. One would think he’d love both equally. The only difference between them was beyond their control. What makes more sense to me isn’t that God distinguishes between these two completely innocent babies and brings only one to heaven, but that the Church wants to motivate people to baptize their babies.
Click to expand...
*emphasis mine
Click to expand...
What has the baby done to not deserve it? Nothing. Baby A and B have done nothing, so how can they deserve different things?
Click to expand...
This is talking about the destiny of unbaptized infants and the one of baptized infants. Any (name removed by moderator)ut about this question would be really apreciated.

Thanks.
 
BUMP, can anybody give some (name removed by moderator)ut on this one? Thanks 🙂
 
Hi Asimis,

The flaw in the reasoning is that faith and justification are free gifts of God that NO ONE can deserve, not even adults. God gives his grace to whom He wants in his own way. And no one can judge God.

Verbum
 
No one deserves Salvation it is a free gift from God for those who seek it. Both infants are identical both born with Original Sin because of the fall of Adam. Both souls created by God but blocked from His love by the effects of Original Sin.

Baptism is received by one because of the responsibility of the parents. WE lost our union with God because of a choice made by another. That union is restored by the choice of either the parents or the person to receive Baptism. The words of Christ to Peter at the foot washing, If I do not wash thee, you can have nothing to do with Me!
 
The fact is, we cannot presume to know the fate of either baby. While Baby A may be baptized and saved, but later in life he may turn his back on God and be lost. Baby B, while not being baptized, may have to opportunity to do so later, or, depending on God’s plan for her life, may be saved in a way known only to God (or also choose against God and be lost).

In the final analysis we only know four things, clearly revealed by Scripture and taught by the Church:
  1. God desires all to be saved.
  2. Being saved at all is a pure act of grace and mercy on God’s part.
  3. God will not save us without our consent, if we are mentally able to make that consent
  4. God has commanded us to baptize as a means to salvation. While this is the normal means he has given us, he himself is not limited to that means.
 
Not to make God impersonal, but let’s look at this in another way.

Say two children, Child A and Child B are born. Let us further state that either through ignorance of such things or a lack of believe in their efficacy, the parents of Baby A do not have the child innoculated. The child is perfectly innocent, but now liable to great danger due to the parents’ failure or someone else’s failure to educate them. Would we blame God (some probably would) for these failures. He has given His creation to His creatures. He has given us to each other. The blame would fall on us.

I think your opponent in the debate is looking at this in an overly individualistic way. The relationship is not simply between God and child. The parents and the Body of Christ (the people of the Church) have a responsibilty. If this responsibility (to spiritually innoculate as it were) is not met, it is to the their detriment. We may assume that the child will suffer more for it, but this does not mean that the Lord loves him less. Indeed, the Lord wishes to stave off this suffering and has shown us the way. But we must be a part of this work. We might ask why we are able to abuse our free will in this and various other ways. Why may we act, or fail to act, in a way that hurts others. Why does God allow such things? The answer is simple, it would not be free will otherwise.

Just my two cents.
 
There was an official release from the vatican a few years ago which pointed out that it is permissible to hope that unbaptized children (infants) go to heaven.

Why? Because, although the only guarantee we have that a child is freed from the loss incurred by original sin is baptism – there is nothing stopping God himself from baptizing the child.

Can we know for certain? No.
Is there any way to prove God doesn’t baptize these children? No.

Is there a difference between baby A and baby B?
YES! one has received the nourishment of baptism, the other has been allowed to starve. ( The baptized baby is more likely to go to heaven than the other since the GRACE needed to love God has been supplied. The other is in danger. )

There is no way to accuse God of being unjust, but parents who refuse to baptize could be, for not only are they depriving the child of the Gift of God, they are also likely denying a belief in its value.
 
LOL, I’m on the atheists side on this one. Let me give yet another sticky situation. Let’s say a baby is BEING born when it dies, and thus even its parents never even had a chance to baptize it. By your reasoning, the baby is going to spend eternity in a lake of fire. God doesn’t sound very merciful in that sinerio, does he?
 
I love how, after a catholic quotes everything their pope has told them to say, they almost always seem to use the “we can never truly understand God” line as the ultimate fall back. It’s not only like a graceful bow from the fray, but it also makes them look humble. I give it a 10 out of 10.
 
SoonerServant said:
LOL, I’m on the atheists side on this one. Let me give yet another sticky situation. Let’s say a baby is BEING born when it dies, and thus even its parents never even had a chance to baptize it. By your reasoning, the baby is going to spend eternity in a lake of fire. God doesn’t sound very merciful in that sinerio, does he?
Click to expand...
If the parents had fully intended to have the child baptized after birth, he would be baptized via baptism by desire.

If not, then we would need to trust in God’s all-encompassing mercy. Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come under me and do not hinder them; for to these belong the kingdom of Heaven.” Given that verse, I sincerely doubt God allows any innocent babies to die, baptized or not.

But I would rather that my children receive the gift of God’s sacramental grace as soon as possible in their lives, thus the necessity of baptism as soon as possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top