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.

"1 Peter 3:21 this verse is fatal to the two baptism heresy. first notice Peter says “Baptism saves” . . . &c."

The only people who got wet in 1 Peter 3 are those who were drowned in the flood. The wicked were baptized in the judgment of God so that the eight people on the ark could be saved from judgment. Water SAVED Noah and his family without ever touching them. The water which judged the wicked kept Noah up and away from judgment.

The SALVATION spoken of there has nothing to do with individual belief on Christ, for Noah, nor his family had the revelation of the Cross available to them. But that "baptism" (the drowning of the wicked while saving the righteous) is a "like figure" how that Christ's baptism in judgment (the Cross) saves the believer while it crucified and killed our OLD MAN and the SIN NATURE . . . BY THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. We are JUSTIFIED by HIS BAPTISM (Calvary) BY HIS RESURRECTION (Romans 4:25).

The baptism of 1 Peter 3 CERTAINLY has nothing to do with dampening or pouring a little water on any one's forehead, we do know that.

There is no case in scripture of a non-believer being baptized. Nor is there any reason to do so. If baptism brought regeneration, we ought to forcibly baptize everyone in water, giving them life and repentance and the gift of the Holy Spirit. But you can sprinkle away until someone drowns without giving them faith or life...

Good point...

Here are not only 2 separate baptisms, but the same people getting baptized twice...

I wonder if these types of verses are blacked out in Catholic bibles...

Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

thank you for your response:

1. why did Jesus command baptism?

your response indicates you believe in two seperate baptisms, which of course is unscriptural. also, you introduce the concept of “water baptism” and say it’s value is in sanctification, but provide no Scripture for this belief. I am not aware of any verse in the NT that teaches that.

2. where does the Bible teach two baptisms?

you responded wth Mark 1:8, which was the baptism of John. we know by the Book of Acts that Christian baptism is the only baptism in effect once Jesus went to the cross and John’s baptism was no longer to be practiced. Ephesians 4 teaches there is only one baptism, not two as your first answer indicated.

3. where does the Bible teach Baptism is symbolic?

we agree, the answer is nowhere. you quote Romans 6:3 as say it shows baptism involves symbolism. i reject this notion totally. since in baptism we are put into Christ, we were also baptized into his death. this is not symbolic, we are either in Christ in reality or we are not.

4. where does the Bible teach baptism is a first act of obedience?

we agree again, it doesn’t. i don’t know why i hear this over and over, no one was ever told this in the Scriptures. the Scriptures teach we are baptized to receive remission of our sins, receive the Holy Spirit and to be placed in Christ.

5. where does the Bible teach baptism is an outward sign of what has happened inwardly already?

you didn’t answer with any verses that say this, so you must agree with me that the answer is nowhere.

you do deny baptism brings regeneration, maybe we can continue this dialogue by looking at Paul and see just how and when he was regenerated.
the Scriptures are very clear that Paul was told by Ananius in Acts 22:16 to “rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name”. this of course is entirely consistent with Acts 2:38, Titus 3:5,Ephesians 5:26, 1 Peter 3:21 just to name a few verses all of which teach baptismal regeneration. how and when do you feel Paul was regenerated from the Scriptures?

LOL, the antitype will bite you every time. however you want to translate the Greek, the following facts about 1 Peter 3:21 can not be denied:

1. the verse says baptism saves us.
2. the verse only mentions “baptism”, it does not say “spirit baptism” nor “water baptism”
3. the baptism that saves us includes water.

it’s as if the Holy Spirit knew Baptists would come along in 1,500 years, so He armed the Church with one verse that just kills the whole “two baptism/baptism doesn’t save us” heresy right out of the water.

as to Cornelius, i showed conclusively that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles and Jewish believers at the same time with the gift of tongues. the Gentiles had not repented, nor expressed faith in Jesus at that point since Peter was still speaking. they still needed their sins washed away, they still needed to receive the Holy Spirit and they still needed to be placed in Christ, and therefore they were baptized. the miracle of the gift of tongues was the Holy Spirit showing Peter the Gospel was for the Gentiles, as well as the Jews.

be honest for a change? i think what is upsetting to some folks is my focusing like a laser beam on the historical, orthodox Faith that is supported by the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition, as opposed to the 16th century tradition of men. so yes, when the answers to my questions do not line up with what the Scriptures teach and Christians ( my religion as you say ) have believed from Peter to Paul to Ignatius to Justin Martyr to Irenaeus to Hippolytus to Athanasius to Jerome to Basil to Augustine to Gregory to Thomas to all the Church Councils all the way to today, i am going to contend for the faith once delivered.

i know it makes people who think they are following Christ, but who teach a different Gospel uncomfortable. i get it.

i believe if one truly is born again and is a believer in Jesus Christ, than they will be obedient to Christ. baptism is what makes one a Christian, the first act of obedience for a Christian is OBEDIENCE. so when Jesus prays that his followers be One in John 17, so the world will know the Father sent Jesus, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO A CHRISTIAN? when Paul instructed the Corinthians not to have any dissension, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO A CHRISTIAN? when Paul instructed the Ephesians that we should all attain to the unity of the faith, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO A CHRISTIAN?

well, to some it apparently means they feel free to read the Scriptures and then decide what THEY FEEL the Scriptures mean, supposedly led by the Holy Spirit, even if the doctrine they FEEL is 100% opposed to historical, orthodox Christianity and no one believed it for 1,500 years. THIS WAY OF THINKING IS SO FAR REMOVED FROM THE MIND OF CHRIST AND HAS DONE TREMENDOUS DAMAGE TO MILLIONS OF SOULS OVER THE PAST CENTURIES.

i can speak from personal experience to the many Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons that i have invited into my home over the years and seeing how they have bought into the lie that the Church went apostate in the 2nd or 3rd century and they are “restoring” the true church. i only pray that my sharing the truth with these lost souls was used by the Holy Spirit to show them that the true Church has been here for 2,000 years, protected by the Holy Spirit and it will be here until the end of the age.

how is the unity Jesus prayed for and Paul commanded possible if everyone feels free to decide doctrine on their own and ignore Hebrews 13:17 “ obey your leaders and SUBMIT TO THEM; for they are keeping watch over your souls as men who will have to give an account”

it is the Holy Spirit who raises up leaders in the Church and protects the Church. when we become a Christian, the Church exists already, we are commanded to be ONE WITH THE CHURCH AND HAVE NO DISSENSION.

the question we all must ask is “ are we obedient to Christ or do we follow our own pride?”

by their fruits you will know them.

Rathe, it is biting you, as again, what cannot be denied is that despite your spin on an antitype, it still does not state baptism is the fulfillment of what the flood typified, like as the temple in Heaven is of the earthly representative, (Heb. 9:24) but that it is a “like figure.”

And as said, while it is water baptism, it saves like as “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,” as it confesses the faith of the heart by which “man believeth unto righteousness.” (Rm. 10:10:10), as God justifies the unGodly by faith, a faith that confesses the Lord Jesus. Thus as shown, souls can and did receive the Holy Spirit prior to baptism, and were at that time baptized into the church.

“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. “ (1 Corinthians 12:13)

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? “ (Acts 10:47)

“Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? “ (Acts 11:17)

“And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. “ (Acts 15:8-9)

But as you cannot allow that, and like Sabellianism, cannot reconcile two apparently contradictory statements, you must insist that there can be only absolutely one baptism, and argue as if water baptism is absolutely necessary for forgiveness and regeneration, thus you must deny what has been made manifest, that God gave the Holy Spirit to souls “who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 11:17) “purifying their hearts by faith,” (Acts 15:9) before they were baptized.

But despite your promotion of “one faith” versus disagreements, your are at odds with your own church and its scholarship on this, but which, like other things that reprove you, you ignore and keep on asserting the same things, even saying they were not answered.

Now instead of basically dismissing things which oppose your statements and asserting the same, go find another Catholic who will argue here that Cornelius and company did NOT receive remission of sins and the Holy Spirit prior to baptism, and or that if anyone did under the New Cov. then they would not have become part of the body of Christ. As for you, you have been given is extended grace. (2Tim. 2:25) May God grant you repentance unto the acknowledging the Truth. Bye.

Relevant posts and links.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=965#965 (#s9, 10)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=940#940

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2901137/posts?page=78#78

RC teachings are not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but that they at least do not contradict it, but which may be according to her self-proclaimed infallible judgment, while Catholics disagree about what Rome as well as Tradition, history and Scripture teaches, and which the poster himself manifests.

And the fruits we will know them by include or (depending on her ability or loss thereof) torturing and cruelly suppressing and even killing theological dissents, or treating moral deviants as members in life and in death. As Teddy K evidences just for one.

But blind devotion results in basically dismissing such inconvenient truths, and more arguments by assertion.

“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. “ (Titus 3:10-11)

Forget whatever "Church" it is you are talking about that you say has taught for 2,000 that the only baptism is water. It is obviously operating under a private interpretation of Scripture, and an illogical one at that.

If the only baptism is water, and baptism saves, then all the wicked in Noah's day will be in heaven.

Set aside what that "Church" has been teaching for, as you say, 2,000 years, and LOOK, LOOK, OPEN THE PAGES AND LOOK, at 1 Peter 3:21.

WHO GOT WET ????? WHO, IN NOAH'S DAY, IN THAT PASSAGE, GOT BAPTIZED ????

Okay, I'll help you. The WICKED. The UNSAVED. Those WHO REJECTED THE TRUTH. They were all baptized in a watery judgment.

WHO WAS SAVED BY WATER ???

I'll help you again. Believers, eight of them, on an ark, WHO NEVER GOT WET; WERE NEVER IMMERSED, POURED ON, DAMPENED; THEY STAYED DRY.

i assumed ( i know what happens when you ASSUME ) that asking a Baptist where the Scriptures teach two baptisms, the Baptist would realize, of course, that i am referring to the “two baptism” Baptist teaching of:

1. a “spirit baptism” that actually regenerates
2. a ceremonial “water baptism” that is for obedience.

we know that John’s baptism referred to in Mark 1:8 is not any of the two baptisms Baptists teach are for Christians. everyone knows this from Acts 19:4-5.

so my question should have been where does the NT teach there are two seperate baptisms for Christians after Jesus commanded baptism in Matthew 28?

i often wonder if people who people who follow the 16th century tradition of men , ever really read the Scriptures they claim to follow.

case in point, the claim that Cornelius was baptized by the Holy Spirit in Acts 10. Acts 10 specifically says the Gentiles WERE NOT BAPTIZED, prior to Peter commanding it in Acts 10:48.

how do i know? V47 tells us!

Acts 10:47 “ can anyone forbid water FOR BAPTIZING these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have”.

there you have it, Peter says they had NOT been BAPTIZED up to that point. IF THE HOLY SPIRIT DID INDEED BAPTIZE THEM, THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR PETER TO BAPTIZE THEM.

There are not two baptisms for Chrsitians, for Paul tells us in Ephesians 4 there is ONLY ONE BAPTISM.

there is no record in the whole NT of anyone having received two Christian baptisms, one “spirit” and one “water” IT SIMPLY IS NOT THERE AND THAT’S WHY THE CHURCH HAS TAUGHT AND BELIEVED THERE IS ONLY ONE BAPTISM FOR 2,000 YEARS.

it would be helpful to some to take off the 16th century tradition of men glasses and actually read what the Scriptures say.

maybe, just maybe, one will see what Christians have taught and believed for 2,000 years.

BTW - according to Peter, water baptism plays a role in sanctification. It acts like the water that ‘saved’ Noah...and Noah’s LIFE wasn’t saved by the water!

Instead, the flood waters separated Noah from the evil world around him, as water baptism does today.

Peter goes on to say, “It is not the washing off of bodily dirt, but the promise made to God from a good conscience. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,22 who has gone to heaven and is at the right side of God, ruling over all angels and heavenly authorities and powers.”

Prior to becoming a Christian, you have no good conscious. It isn’t the washing water, but the promise you make to God after regeneration, to live in submission to his will. And this is possible due to what Jesus Christ has done, and by his power and authority.

The idea that we come to life when we are baptized in water is ridiculous. Who (other than an infant) is baptized BEFORE they have the desire to do so? And in the case of infants, 2000 years of experience shows us it has no effect on their future life.

Read Acts. It is filled with examples of when the baptism of the Holy Spirit does NOT happen at water baptism. Frankly, you’d have a stronger case for the laying on of hands...

You again are ignoring what opposes you and refuted your assertions, which remain just that, while your apparent simple-minded (which you confess you are) inability to understand or allow different types of baptism (which includes Lk. 12:50; 1Cor. 10:2) and the contextual nature of terms excludes you as a theologian.

You also ignore my challenge to “find another Catholic who will argue here that Cornelius and company did NOT receive remission of sins and the Holy Spirit prior to baptism, and or that if anyone did under the New Cov. then they would not have become part of the body of Christ.”

With such i will actually exchange, but no longer with you. Bye.

I was thinking about this passage the last few days:

John 3:22-36
After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptized. (This was before John was put in prison.) An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”

To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven. You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead of him.’ The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less.”

The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

So Jesus and his Apostles were water baptizing at the same time John the Baptist was and this was BEFORE Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was given to indwell the believer. The disciples were discussing "ceremonial washings" with a Jew who, no doubt, was familiar with what they were doing with baptism - which was a common rite within Judaism. Though we know from John 4:2 that Jesus, himself, did not baptize anyone but his disciples were baptizing people in the name of Jesus. This makes the case for the rite of water baptism to be different than the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which could have only happened AFTER the resurrection and Pentecost. Also, as to Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch, they were in a desert so I wonder what would have happened had they not found an oasis with water in it to baptize the new believer? Just curious on your thoughts.

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.