On Infant Baptism and the Complete Gratuity of Salvation

It is a simple historical fact that the Church has always baptized infants. Even our earliest documents speak of the practice. For example the Apostolic Tradition written about 215 A.D. has this to say:

The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. (Apostolic Tradition # 21)

Scripture too confirms that infants should be baptized if you do the math. For example

People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But 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. (Luke 18:15-17 NIV)

So the Kingdom of God belongs to the little Children (in Greek brephe indicating little Children still held in the arms, babes). And yet elsewhere Jesus also reminds that it is necessary to be baptized in order to enter the Kingdom of God:

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. (John 3:5 NIV)

If the Kingdom of God belongs to little children and we are taught that we cannot inherit it without baptism then it follows that Baptizing infants is necessary and that to fail to do so is a hindering of the little children which Jesus forbade his apostles to do.

So both Tradition and Scripture affirm the practice of baptizing infants. Strange then that some among the Protestants (not all) should criticize us for this practice. Even stranger that the Baptists are usually be the ones to do so. You’d think with a name like “Baptist” they’d be more into baptism. (Truth be told, most of the other Protestant denominations do baptize infants). It is primarily Baptists and some Evangelicals who refuse the practice.

Part of the reason for this is that they seem to water down (pardon the pun) the fuller meaning of baptism, no longer seeing it as washing away sins and conferring righteousness per se. Rather they seem to see it more as a symbol of faith already received when they said the sinners prayer and accepted Christ as their savior. No time here to argue the full logic of their position and why it falls short of a biblical and Traditional understanding of Baptism.

But, for those of us who do continue the ancient and biblical practice of baptizing infants, the practice says some very wonderful things about the gratuity of salvation and the goodness of God. Consider these points:

1. The baptism of infants is a powerful testimony to the absolute gratuity (gift) of salvation. Infants have achieved nothing, have not worked, have not done anything to “merit” salvation. The Catechism puts it this way: The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. (CCC # 1250) The Church is clear, salvation cannot be earned or merited, and infant baptism teaches that most clearly. Salvation is pure gift.

How strange and ironic that some of the very denominations which claim that Catholics teach salvation by works (we do not) also refuse to baptize infants. They claim that a certain age of maturity is required so that the person understands what they are doing. But this sounds like achievement. That the child must meet some requirement seems like a work, or the attainment of some meritorious status wherein one is now old enough to “qualify” for baptism and salvation. “Qualifications….Achievement (of age)….Requirements….it all sounds like what they accuse us of: namely works and merit.

To be clear then, the Catholic understanding of the gratuity of salvation is far more radical than many non-Catholics understand. We baptize infants who are not capable of meriting, attaining or earning.

2. The Baptism of infants also powerfully attests to the fact that the beauty of holiness and righteousness is available to everyone regardless of age. To be baptized means to be washed. Washed of what? Original Sin. At first this seems like a downer, “Are you saying my baby has sin?” Yep. All of us inherit Original Sin from Adam and Eve. We are born into a state of alienation from God that is caused by sin. The Scriptures are clear: [S]in entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned (Rom 5:12). So even infants are in need of the saving touch of God.

Now why would we wish to delay this salvation and resulting holiness for 7 to 12 years? The Catechism says this, Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by Original Sin, children also have need of new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and be brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God….The Church and parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth. (CCC # 1250).

St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage in the 3rd Century was asked if it was OK to wait to the 8th day to baptize since baptism had replaced circumcision. He responded with a strong no: But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day We [the bishops] all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. (Epist# 58).

So then, here is the beauty, that infants are summoned to receive the precious gift of holiness and righteousness and that they are summoned to a right relationship with God by having their sin purged and holiness infused. Infants are called to this dignity and should not be denied it. With this done, some of the holiest and most innocent days of our lives may well be our first years. Then as the will begins to manifest and reason begins to dawn the grace of holiness gives us extra strength to fight against the sinful world that looms.

3. The Baptism of Infants also attests to the fact that faith is gift for every stage of development- To be baptized is to receive the gift of faith. It is baptism that gives the true faith. Even with adults, true faith does not come until baptism. Prior to that there is a kind of prevenient faith, but it is not the Theological Virtue of Faith.

Now faith is not only an intellectual assent to revealed doctrine. It is that but it is more. To have faith is also be be in a righteous and trusting relationship with God. An infant relates to his parents long before he speaks or his rational mind is fully formed. He trusts his parents and depends on them. It is the same with God. The infant trusts and depends of God and is in a right relationship with God. With his parents, this relationship of trust leads the infant to begin to speak and understand as he grows. Here too it is the same with God. As his mind awakens the infant’s faith grows. It will continue to grow until the day he dies (hopefully) as an old man.

That faith accompanies us through every stage of our life and develops as we do is essential to its nature. An infant needs faith no less than an old man. An infant benefits from faith no less than a teenager or an adult.

To argue as some Protestants do that you have to be a certain age before faith can exist, hardly seems to respect the progressive nature of faith which is able to bless EVERY stage of our human journey.

I have some very vivid memories of my experience of God prior to seven years of age and I will say that God was very powerfully present to me in my early years, in many ways even more so than now, when my mind sometimes “gets in the way.”

Another post too long. Forgive me dear reader. But please spread the word. Too many Catholics are waiting months, even years to have their children baptized. Precious time is lost by this laxity.

Infant Baptism speaks powerfully of the love that God has for everyone he has created and of his desire to have everyone in a right and saving relationship with Him. Surely baptism alone isn’t enough. The child must be raised in the faith. It is the nature of faith that it grows by hearing and seeing. Children must have faith given at baptism but that faith must be explained and unwrapped like a precious gift for them. Don’t delay. Get started early and teach your child the faith they have received every day.

Salvation is pure gift. How strange and ironic that some of the very denominations which claim that Catholics teach salvation by works (we do not) also refuse, themselves, to baptize infants. They claim that a certain age of maturity is required so that the person understands what they are doing. But this sounds like achievement to me. That the child must meet some requirement, seems like a work, or the attainment of some meritorious status wherein one is now old enough to “qualify” for baptism and salvation. “Qualifications” - Achievement (OF AGE) -.”Requirements”, it all sounds like what they accuse us of: namely works and merit. To be clear then, the Catholic understanding of the gratuity of salvation is far more radical than many non-Catholics understand. We baptize infants who are NOT capable of meriting, attaining or earning.”

Apologist, Msg Charles Pope

It is readily apparent that Mr. Pope is lacking considerably in knowledge of the scriptures relies on his own faulty wisdom in trying to come to a place where the scriptures have some relevance for himself...

We baptize infants who are NOT capable of meriting, attaining or earning.”

So then those children who are old enough to be capable of meriting, attaining or earning salvation must do so, eh???

They claim that a certain age of maturity is required so that the person understands what they are doing. But this sounds like achievement to me. That the child must meet some requirement, seems like a work, or the attainment of some meritorious status wherein one is now old enough to “qualify” for baptism and salvation.<

Our position is that children up to the age of consent are automatically going to heaven if they should die before they reach that age...I can't imagine that that position has somehow escaped your purview...

Being “born again” describe EFFECTS of baptism, which Christ speaks of in John 3:5 as being “born of water and the Spirit.” In Greek, this phrase is, literally, “born of water and Spirit,” indicating ONE birth of water-and-Spirit, rather than “born of water and of the Spirit,” as though it meant two different births—one birth of water and one birth of the Spirit.

Complete nonsense...

In the water-and-Spirit rebirth that takes place at baptism, the repentant sinner is transformed from a state of sin to the state of grace.

Outrageously wrong...Every sinner, repentant or not is in a state of grace, if he chooses to accept it...

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Thru faith, not water baptism...Grace is the favor from God that allows us to be saved...

we must approach the Scriptures from the standpoint that they comprise the written Word of God, therefore the whole Bible is true and it does not contradict itself.
the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not opposed to faith, quite the opposite faith is required to receive the sacrament.
the problem that those who deny baptismal regeneration have is there are too many verses which teach it and there are no verses that indicate baptism is for any other purpose than regeneration ( for example, no verses exist which state baptism is for obedience nor a public testimony )
the other huge problem those who deny baptismal regeneration have is the Universal Church itself. the Apostles went all over the known world preaching Christ, teaching and baptizing. then laid hands on faithful men to carry out their mission once they passed and those men laid hands on other men and so on.... what did these men find when they compared what was taught by the Apostles in Greece, Rome, Jerusalem, Northern Africa, etc, etc? THEY FOUND EVERYONE WAS TAUGHT AND BELIEVED BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. there is no historical record of anyone who denied baptism was for the remission of sins and being sealed with the HolY Spirit. the doctrine is not only taught in the Scriptures, but it was obviously taught as a Apostolic Tradition, since it was a universally recieved doctrine of the Church.
now you can choose to hold to a doctrine that contradicts historical, orthodox Christian belief and only came into existence in the 16th century, i do not.

the claim is made is made that the Holy Spirit baptized Cornelius and his friends and family therefore they were regenerated before being being what is called “ water baptism”. ok, let’s see if that is what Acts 10 says.
we know Peter was accompanied by Jewish believers when he went to see Cornelius. ( Acts 10:23, 10:45 ) these Jewish believers were already regenerated and were Christians.
this fact is very important because these believers were listening to Peter preach, along with the Gentiles present.
verse 44 says “ while Peter was still saying this, THE HOLY SPIRIT FELL ON ALL WHO HEARD THE WORD”
do you see that? The Holy Spirit fell on ALL who heard the word, believer and Gentile alike. if one says this was a “baptism” by the Holy Spirit, why did He fall on the Jewish believers? were they in need of spirit baptism?
no, verse 46 tells us the gift the Holy Spirit gave all who heard the word was not baptism, but tongues. verse 47 Peter says it was the same gift they received in Acts 2.
it obviously was not not regeneration, since there were many Gentiles present and they all could not have believed at the same time, nor is there any verse that says they repented or believed in Christ BEFORE the Holy Spirit fell on them.
The Holy Spirit was showing Peter by the miracle of tongues that the Gospel was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.
Peter commanded baptism for the Gentiles, as they needed their sins remitted and needed to be sealed with the Holy Spirit the same as Paul in Acts 22 and the Jews in Acts 2.
Peter does not tell the Gentiles to be baptized as a first act of obedience, nor as a public display of faith.

this is a good example of someone trying to read something in the Scriptures that doesn’t exist to try and justify an unbiblical teaching. it never works.

LOL, such effort is made to deny the clear words of Peter in 1 PETER 3:20-21.
v20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is eight persons, WERE SAVED THRU WATER.

nothing symbolic about this, the eight people were saved thru water.

v21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, NOW SAVES YOU.....

AGAIN, NOTHING SYMBOLIC ABOUT IT.
you also notice Peter doesn’t say “water baptism” , just baptism.in the Apostolic times, there was only ONE BAPTISM, the Baptists and their “two baptism” heresy wouldn’t arrive on the world scene for another 1,500 years.

oh, by the way, check a post or two prior where i show absolutely that the gift the Holy Spirit gave Cornelius was tongues and not baptism. but i do appreciate your posting Augustine, too bad you don’t believe as he did.

i don’t know why some insist on using the unbiblical term “water baptism”. you can search the NT and you will not find one example where this term is ever used.
the ONE BAPTISM in Ephesians 4 is the the baptism preached by Peter in Acts 2, Philip in Acts 8, Ananias in Acts 22, Paul in Romans 6, Paul in Galatians 3, Paul in Titus 3, Peter in 1 Peter 3, Paul in Ephesians 5, Paul in 1 Corinthians 12, etc. etc.
ONE BAPTISM MEANS JUST THAT.
now if your religion locks you into the 16th century tradition of men that there are two baptisms, something called spirit baptism and something called water baptism, i can’t help you.
Christians have believed for 2,000 years in one baptism.
and when the divinity of Jesus was under attack from Arius in the early 4th century, the Universal Church came together to defend the divinity of Jesus ( my religion ) and also declare we “acknowledge ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

maybe you wouldn’t mind answering a question:

Jesus commanded baptism in Matthew 28, was this water baptism? if yes, why did he command “water baptism” ?

My Bible is the Douay-Rheims, not a modern translation. The Douay-Rheims is a word for word translation of the original, the Latin Vulgate. Doing penance is a part of repentance. Peter was talking to adults, who had not yet been baptized, who were hearing about the faith for the first time.

I have to account to God for everything I do so “doing penance” is a part of of reparation for the serious and lessor sins I commit in my life. Repentance, Confession and reparation. We do it here by our crosses and sufferings, our loving acts and prayers. If not completed here during your life, you do it over the veil in Purgatory. God is perfectly just.

Peter DIDN’T say do penance to be baptized.

The “do” is a problem for non-Catholics since they believe the heresy of ‘faith alone.’ Sola Fide contributes to so many of the objections about the faith.

The disagreement in the discussion is over infant baptism and I commented about another, the meaning of Jesus’ term “born again.” There is no “water” in the Protestants new definition of “born again.” Acts 2:38-39 shows everyone is to be baptized, that includes children (infants too). You can know the practice of the Church, it’s been passed down, it’s so important Baptism, you can’t enter Heaven otherwise!

To reject what the first Christians believed, well, you can’t say you didn’t know. Here’s a quote:

In A.D. 151, Justin Martyr wrote,

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true . . . are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61).

God bless you,

Acts 2:38
But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

To reject the one baptism, in this age of Grace, the baptism by the Holy Spirit into Christ is well, something that you cannot say you did not know after reading carefully the Scriptures.

"There is ONE body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph. 4:4-6.

So what is this ONE BAPTISM that is spoken of here?

"For BY ONE SPIRIT are we all BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY.." 1 Cor. 12:13.

It is the Spirit, in the dispensation of Grace, that baptizes us into Christ the very moment we trust in the finished work of Christ. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26, 27).

And, once again, how are we "baptized into Christ"? "For BY ONE SPIRIT are we all baptized INTO ONE BODY."

Not by water, not by fire, not by baptism in suffering (Lk. 12:50), not in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2), and not by baptism IN the Holy Spirit.

The ONE BAPTISM is BY the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ, not IN the Holy Spirit.

Actually, this was believed before A.D. 151. This was believed around 59 A.D. or before. When the revelation of the mystery was revealed to Paul, who was given the ministry of forming the body of Christ. Long before Justin Martyr was around.

Thank you, smvoice. We are asked, "Why do you use the expression, "water baptism?" The question is asked obviously to say, "What other baptism is there?" Then we are told NOT to read their mind, when their mind is expressed so clearly in the words of their posts. THEY DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANY BAPTISM THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE WATER.

We, of course, use the expression, "water baptism" in conversation or writing to differentiate the use of the word "baptism" where the mediums of baptism and the baptizer are different in different contexts (of SCRIPTURE, NOT 16th century writings from Geneva).

What if a blind man has it drummed into his skull that the word "car" always means a Ford, four-door, five-passenger sedan. Whenever he hears someone say, "I bought a new car," what will he believe ? He will always believe that the purchase was of a Ford, four-door, five-passenger sedan.

If a person has it drummed into his head from early childhood by his religious organization that at every instance the word, "baptism" is found, water must necessarily be the medium, then he will argue that Ephesians 4:5, Galatians 3:27, etc. must be speaking about some use of water.

In the passage you raised, Matthew 3:11, water is the medium for one baptism, the Holy Ghost is the medium for one baptism, and fire is the medium for one baptism.

Water, the Holy Ghost, and fire are, of course, not synonymous. It is possible for man to immerse another man into water. It is also possible for the Lord Jesus to immerse a believer in the Holy Ghost (without the use of water). It is also possible for the Holy Ghost to immerse a believer into Jesus Christ (without the use of water). And it is possible for Christ to immerse a nation (say, Israel)in fire . . . . without the use of water.

There is one baptism for the context of Ephesians 4 (v. 5), and water is found nowhere in that context. Let he who thinks that Eph. 4.5 speaks of the same baptism as, say, Matthew 28:19, prove that there is water in Eph. 4:5. He could only use circular reasoning, which would not prove his point. Ephesians 5:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 can be identical, where the baptizer is the Holy Spirit (not a man), and the medium is the Body of Christ (not water) ; Ephesians 4:5 could not be the same as Matthew 28:19, where the baptizers are human beings, and the medium is water.

I haven't been instructing you, smvoice, I know that you understand these things. I'm just expanding upon your post, if you don't mind.

exactly, WHAT OTHER BAPTISM IS THERE?

The Scriptures are quite clear and the Church has always taught and believed there is ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM.

this is why the Scriptures never say “water baptism” or “spirit baptism”, the Scriptures only say “baptism”.

the Church received AUTHORITY FROM JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF to baptize and the Church received POWER FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT to baptize. without this authority and power, baptism would mean nothing. because of this, Paul can say in 1 Corinthians 12, for by one Spirit we have been baptized into one body. it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates, using the means of the Church to baptize. this can be illustrated by Acts 22:13, when Saul received his sight. It was Ananius who said Brother Saul receive your sight and Saul did. Was it by the power of Ananius that Saul received his sight or the Holy Spirit. Obviously it was the Holy Spirit giving the power to Ananius to restore Sauls sight. So it is with the Holy Spirit giving power to the Church to baptize.
let’s look at some Scripture to prove there is just one baptism ( other than Ephesians 4 which should be enough to settle the matter )
1. Acts 2:38. Peter instructs them to be baptized and they will receive the GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. obviously, the Jews believed Peter’s message, but had not yet received remission of their sins, nor the Holy Spirit. these were indicated to be FUTURE EVENTS, RECEIVED IN BAPTISM. also, notice Peter never says to believe and you will be “spirit baptized” and then after that you should be “water baptized”

2. Acts 8. Philip was brought to the eunuch, preached Jesus Christ to him and obviously preached baptismal regeneration to him. how do we know this? Acts 8:36, the eunuch sees water and asks what is to prevent him from being baptized? notice he doesn’t say “water baptized” and he didn’t say since i have been “spirit baptized” already what’s to prevent me from being water baptized? now up to this point we also know the eunuch has not expressed faith in Jesus Christ, for if he had, Philip’s response would have been nothing prevents you. but Philip answered , if you believe with all your heart, you may. if there was such a thing as spirit baptism, Philip would have said “if you believe with all your heart, the Holy Spirit will baptize you” no, once the eunuch says I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he was baptized by Philip for the remission of his sins and received the gift of the Holy Spirit, BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT given to Philip. the eunuch only mentions ONE BAPTISM, SINCE PHILIP ONLY TAUGHT HIM ONE BAPTISM.
3. Acts 22:16. Paul ( Saul ) was blinded by Jesus and asked why was he persecuting him. we can only imagine what was going thru his mind, but once he was sent to Ananius and had his sight restored to him, i am pretty sure he believed in Jesus Christ at this point. did that belief mean he was “spirit baptized” already? NO! up until verse 16, Paul was still dead in his sins, he needed to be baptized.
v16 “ and now why do you wait? rise, AND BE BAPTIZED AND WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, CALLING ON HIS NAME” again, notice no mention of “spirit baptism” and a seperate “water baptism”
4. 1 Peter 3:21 this verse is fatal to the two baptism heresy. first notice Peter says “Baptism saves” and he says it saves thru water just as the eight were saved thru water in Noah’s day. so there is no getting around it, Peter makes the point there is only ONE BAPTISM AND IT SAVES. now, if someone says it is “spirit baptism” that saves and not “water baptism”, Peter is obviously talking about baptism that involves water and this verse only mentions baptism. IT DOES NOT SAY SPIRIT BAPTISM SAVES AND WATER BAPTISM IS A PICTURE OR SYMBOL OF THAT SPIRIT BAPTISM THAT OCCURRED ALREADY.

there is a very good reason no one believed this “two baptism” teaching before the 16th century, THE SCRIPTURES DON’T TEACH IT.

look at the fruit of this teaching,it goes against the prayer of Jesus in John 17:21 that all who believe in Him should be one and it goes against Paul’s teaching that there be no dissension in the Church and we all speak with one voice in unity of the faith.
so when Baptist’s preach that there was a great apostosy in the 2nd century and pagan beliefs took over the Church until the true teaching on baptism was restored in the 16th century, they are going against the Scriptures and the fruit of this teaching is the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian Scientists, etc etc.

i realize it upsets many Baptists when i point out the unscriptural nature of their teaching on two baptisms and how it is no more historical, orthodox Christianity than the Mormons, but i, like all Christians, am called to be a witness for the truth. let he who has ears, hear.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.