Infant Baptism - "A Solemn Mockery before God"

[rocka21]

Paedobaptists have their rites for infants, and anabaptists have their own rites for infants. Kettle, Pot is calling on line one.

i have been pot called often! LOL

Here's where a lot of the problem lies. Christian churches have such diverse beliefs on original sin, salvation, and the mysteries/sacraments/ordinances/rites of the church, that it's ludicrous to discuss whether paedobaptism or anabaptism is right or wrong in isolation, as if there were no larger context in which each church performs its baptisms.

you said a mouth full. ( see all christian denominations!) the debate goes on....

 

[athanasius]

Athanasius, I have a question for you. Could you try to explain in your own words, if possible, what the Catholic Church understands "Original Sin" to be. If an infant has Original Sin, what exactly does that mean in terms of his own salvation? Since he is not held accountable for his own actions in infancy, what is he being held accountable for? Adam's sin? I'm afraid I just don't understand what, exactly, his baptism is supposed to accomplish. If he dies without baptism and has committed no sins of his own, will he in any way be punished for what Adam did? If so, why? If not, what did his baptism accomplish?

Great question my friend. I don't think I can answer this as good as the Catechism can,

Here is why we baptize babies according to the catechism:

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.[53]"(CCC 1250-1252)




Here is the catechism on original sin:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

We do know that a infant will not go to hell if he dies because he has not committed personal mortal sin, but we are not 100% sure what happens to a unbaptized baby who dies, recently he Pope has suggested that we trust in Christ that he will take them to heaven them out of Mercy. Limbo was the old theological theory(Not a dogma). I trust God will take them to heaven them by his grace and mercy but I have no 100% surety of this. Either which way I know they will not end up in hell. I hope that helps. The Catechism explains all this much better. Enjoy.

 

[Katzpur]

Here is why we baptize babies according to the catechism:

The Baptism of infants

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.

This is where I get confused. (1) If Christ's sacrifice atoned for the sins of all men, what sin is a baby to be held accountable for? What power of darkness taints a newborn baby? How exactly is a newborn tainted by a sin that Christ presumably atoned for?

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.

(2) Are you saying that a baby who dies prior to being baptized is not considered by God to be His child?

 

[athanasius]

This is where I get confused. If Christ's sacrifice atoned for the sins of all men, what sin is a baby to be held accountable for? What power of darkness taints a newborn baby? How exactly is a newborn tainted by a sin that Christ presumably atoned for?

Are you saying that a baby who dies prior to being baptized is not considered by God to be His child?

Good question. Simple really. We believe that Christ atoned for it. But we believe that he applies that atonement at baptism. The cross was atonement accomplished, baptism is atonement applied. We view the All as children of the first adam in the spiritual sense until baptism then they are viewed as Children of the second Adam(Jesus) in the spiritual sense.

 

[Katzpur]

Good question. Simple really. We believe that Christ atoned for it. But we believe that he applies that atonement at baptism. The cross was atonement accomplished, baptism is atonement applied.

Thank you. That answers my first question. What about the second one?

 

[athanasius]

Thank you. That answers my first question. What about the second one?

Just answered the second question check the first reply again.

 

[Buttercup]

Good question. Simple really. We believe that Christ atoned for it. But we believe that he applies that atonement at baptism. The cross was atonement accomplished, baptism is atonement applied. We view the All as children of the first adam in the spiritual sense until baptism then they are viewed as Children of the second Adam(Jesus) in the spiritual sense.

The one issue I've never understood about infant baptism however is that a baby does nothing to accept or deny Christ yet they are admitted into his loving arms because of the baptism. Isn't that salvation through works?

 

[Katzpur]

We view the All as children of the first adam in the spiritual sense until baptism then they are viewed as Children of the second Adam(Jesus) in the spiritual sense.

That doesn't really seem fair to the child who dies before he is baptized, but it does answer my question. Thanks, Athanasius.

 

[athanasius]

The one issue I've never understood about infant baptism however is that a baby does nothing to accept or deny Christ yet they are admitted into his loving arms because of the baptism. Isn't that salvation through works?

Just like the infant was welcomed into the covenant of God in circumsion, we Catholic believe that Baptism is a fulfillment of circumscion(Col 2:11-13) and God does the same for our infants.ON the contrary, to the Catholic, Baptism and the salvation given through the sacrament is a free gift(Rom 5-6). Infant baptism really shows this. What works could a infant possible do to earn salvation? Rather we see it as a free gift from God poured out upon the infant or adult(Titus 3:5-7) entering him into the covenant(Rom 6) and saving him initially(1 Peter 3:21. Titus 3:5-7). Like Jesus tells us to celebrate the last supper, he also tells us to baptize(Matt 28) because it is his free gift to us by virtue of the his grace and the Holy Spirit.. We Catholics believe that baptism(and all the sacraments) are simply how Christ set up the application of his cross to us in a personal, physical, and spiritual way using the physical(Water) and the spiritual (Holy Spirit) to convey upon us who are both physical and Spiritual his free gift of salvation. I hope that helps you understand our position better. God bless you in Jesus through Mary Immaculate,
Athanasius

 

[Buttercup]

this. What works could a infant possible do to earn salvation?

I meant 'works' as provided through the parents. However, you answered my question afterward.

and saving him initially

Ahhh, this is what I thought. I don't disagree with the Catholic practice of baptising...I simply see it as unnecessary. If infant baptism is done on ceremony as a parental pledge to bring the child up in a Godly home for the benefit of understanding and accepting Christ's atoning work on the cross later in life...that makes sense. In my mind, the work of Christ is for a mature mind to accept or deny. But, I understand better, thanks.

 

[Quiddity]

That doesn't really seem fair to the child who dies before he is baptized, but it does answer my question. Thanks, Athanasius.

Saying "we don't know" is unfair?

 

[Katzpur]

Saying "we don't know" is unfair?

No, it's not, but that's not what I got out of Athanasius' answer. He quoted the catechism and said, "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." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound like "we don't know" to me. It sounds more like "A child who dies before being baptized is not a child of God." It's just hard for me to understand why God would not accept any child as being His, particularly when the matter was out of the child's hands.

 

[athanasius]

No, it's not, but that's not what I got out of Athanasius' answer. He quoted the catechism and said, "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." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound like "we don't know" to me. It sounds more like "A child who dies before being baptized is not a child of God." It's just hard for me to understand why God would not accept any child as being His, particularly when the matter was out of the child's hands.

Of coarse they are Gods children in the ultimate sense. That is that God created them. However, in the real spiritual sense, because we believe that we all contract original sin through our first parents(Adam and Eve), then we also believe that they became Children of the first Adam and Eve. Since We believe that the bible and apostolic tradition have always shown Mary and Jesus to be the second Eve and Second Adam, the fulfillments of the first two for the entire world, and since Baptism is the key sacrament that incorporates you into the family(Rom 6) and washes away this sin(Acts 22:16) and initially saves you(1 Peter 3:21). Then in the spiritual sense, yes we believe that we are made children of the second Adam(Jesus, God) by his transforming grace in the sacrament of Baptism. We are transformed by him by the power and grace of the HOLY Spirit from this sacrament and made children of the most high God, and our nature then is restored in him by virtue of the merits of his cross applied in this sacrament. I hope that helps Katz. God bless you always. We do believe that God would possibly accept this child into heaven, that is what our Pope and catechism currently is asking Catholics to have faith in but we just have no 100% certainty. But we know they wouldn't go to hell for sure.

Athanasius

 

[nutshell]

Saying "we don't know" is unfair?

"We don't know" wasn't the answer, senor.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good question. Simple really. We believe that Christ atoned for it. But we believe that he applies that atonement at baptism. The cross was atonement accomplished, baptism is atonement applied.

I don't find it so simple, myself.

By tying Grace and salvation to a human ritual, isn't the implication that God is subject to the orders of men?

This is my major theological stumbling block with all sacraments, but baptism especially.

Could God be so petty as to punish an infant because he was baptised in the name of the Father and the Son, but not the Holy Spirit? Could God be so weak that, despite wanting to, He could not save the soul of an infant, because the baptismal water only touched her hair and not her skin directly?

If the answer to both those questions is "no", then why would you say that baptism (i.e. the human ceremony) is required at all?

 

[Quiddity]

No, it's not, but that's not what I got out of Athanasius' answer. He quoted the catechism and said, "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." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound like "we don't know" to me. It sounds more like "A child who dies before being baptized is not a child of God." It's just hard for me to understand why God would not accept any child as being His, particularly when the matter was out of the child's hands.

What athanasius said...

But to add, when we say "children of God" we mean in it in a ecclesiastical sense. You can almost equate that to when we say there is salvation outside the visible Catholic Church. Those people saved outside the visible Catholic Church are saved in a mystical sense. Which basically means it's possible but we don't fully understand how it works.

With infants not only is it possible, but we believe they won't go to hell.

 

[athanasius]

I don't find it so simple, myself.

By tying Grace and salvation to a human ritual, isn't the implication that God is subject to the orders of men?

This is my major theological stumbling block with all sacraments, but baptism especially.

Could God be so petty as to punish an infant because he was baptised in the name of the Father and the Son, but not the Holy Spirit? Could God be so weak that, despite wanting to, He could not save the soul of an infant, because the baptismal water only touched her hair and not her skin directly?

If the answer to both those questions is "no", then why would you say that baptism (i.e. the human ceremony) is required at all?

The Catholic church teaches that Gods "normative" (or normal way) means of grace and salvation are subject through the church in her sacraments because this is how God set them up to relate to us personally, physically, and spiritually in his church which is his Body and Christ to the World. He does this because we are physical and spiritual and he is a personal God. And this is how we are supposed to come to him and recieve his saving graces. However the Catholic church also teaches that God himself is not soley bound by his own sacraments and can give saving graces to people for salvation outside these sacraments in certain cases such as the Thief on the cross. This is also why the catholic church believes that it is possible that Non Catholics and Non-Christians may be saved(By the grace and Mercy of Christ even if they do not know it) We believe that God certainly can and would also possibly give these graces to infants in some mystical way if they died without them so they could enter heaven.


We trust this we just do not have 100% surety of it as it is not been revealed by the Holy Spirit to the church in scripture or tradition to us yet. God would not punish the infant for not being baptized. The infant could not go to hell because the infant did not commit any personal mortal sin. But to get to heaven, you need to have sanctifying grace in your soul and you get that from baptismal graces poured upon you. Nothing unclean can enter heaven as Rev 21:27 states. God very well may sanctify them by his mercy and grace. One theory suggest that if for some reason the children could not get to heaven, then they would go to a place or state of being of natural eternal happiness, this theory was know as limbo, a place or stare of being of natural happiness and not supernatural happiness like heaven. Lately the Pope is suggesting that we put aside the limbo theory and trust God that he will mercifully sanctify them.

But why would a Atheist like yourself care about God or the Catholic doctrine anyway. To you neither are anything more than a fairy tale.

I hope that helps.

May God bless you in Jesus through Mary,
Athanasius

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Catholic church teaches that Gods "normative" (or normal way) means of grace and salvation are subject through the church in her sacraments because this is how God set them up to relate to us personally, physically, and spiritually in his church which is his Body and Christ to the World. He does this because we are physical and spiritual and he is a personal God. And this is how we are supposed to come to him and recieve his saving graces. However the Catholic church also teaches that God himself is not soley bound by his own sacraments and can give saving graces to people for salvation outside these sacraments in certain cases such as the Thief on the cross. This is also why the catholic church believes that it is possible that Non Catholics and Non-Christians may be saved(By the grace and Mercy of Christ even if they do not know it) We believe that God certainly can and would also possibly give these graces to infants in some mystical way if they died without them so they could enter heaven.

So... if the Church acknowledges non-"normative" ways to acheive salvation, then why do they also preach that baptism is necessary? If, as you say, God is not bound by His sacraments, shouldn't trust in God be enough?

But why would a Atheist like yourself care about God or the Catholic doctrine anyway. To you neither are anything more than a fairy tale.

I have two big reasons, both stemming from one important person in my life:

- if I were to personally become a Catholic, it would make my wife very happy. However, I would not be able to do so unless I generally agreed with Catholic teachings. Yes, this includes the basic tenet that God exists (which is one on which I admit the Church and I do not see eye-to-eye ), but also includes issues around consistency in doctrine.

- any children that I have will likely have some level of involvement with the Catholic Church, and I think it's important for parents to know what's being taught to their kids.

In any case, I'm not familiar with any definition of atheism that requires its adherents to be closed-minded to new ideas. If someone could give me a good case for Catholicism (or Hinduism, Rastafarianism, Islam or any other faith), I certainly hope I'd give it proper consideration.

 

[athanasius]

So... if the Church acknowledges non-"normative" ways to acheive salvation, then why do they also preach that baptism is necessary? If, as you say, God is not bound by His sacraments, shouldn't trust in God be enough?



I have two big reasons, both stemming from one important person in my life:

- if I were to personally become a Catholic, it would make my wife very happy. However, I would not be able to do so unless I generally agreed with Catholic teachings. Yes, this includes the basic tenet that God exists (which is one on which I admit the Church and I do not see eye-to-eye ), but also includes issues around consistency in doctrine.

- any children that I have will likely have some level of involvement with the Catholic Church, and I think it's important for parents to know what's being taught to their kids.

In any case, I'm not familiar with any definition of atheism that requires its adherents to be closed-minded to new ideas. If someone could give me a good case for Catholicism (or Hinduism, Rastafarianism, Islam or any other faith), I certainly hope I'd give it proper consideration.

You have good questions and I certainly wish you well on your study of Catholic church. Sounds like God is calling you to do research. Thats cool. We believe it(Baptism) is normatively required for these graces because Jesus said so, that is putting it bluntely. Jesus revealed that this is how we are to receive his grace and it is the only 100% positive sure way for us to know we do. I hope that helps. Its kinda simple answer but I my wife always tells me keep it i simple stupid. LOL! Thanks for the good qwuestions.

May Christ guide you ion the way to his Church and to a relationship with the almighty and his Mother.

God bless you In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasius.

Ps. If there is anything else I can possibly help with please let me know. A great book to read on the basics and gives a good case for the Catholic faith is called "Catholic and Christian" by Dr Alan Schreck, professor of theology at Fransician University in Steubenville Ohio.

A good group of apologist and scholars that you can ask question to and write to is catholic answers. www.catholic.com

God bless you on your faith journey. Also a great book that uses reason is called "the "handbook of Christian apologetics" by Kreeft and Tacelli and Cs Lewis "Mere Chrisitanity".