Why infant baptism?

OSV.com ^ | 08-01-18 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Why infant baptism? Practices have shifted for some Christians, but Catholics are with those who hold to infant baptism

Msgr. Charles Pope 8/1/2018

Question: Since infant baptism is becoming controversial, why doesn’t the Church abandon the practice or emphasize individualized confirmation for older teens? —Robert Bonsignore,  Brooklyn, N.Y.

Answer: I am unaware of any recent controversy about infant baptism in the Church. There have been Protestant groups opposed to infant baptism, but their views stretch back more than 200 years. Ironically today, it is the Baptists and their evangelical offshoots that are most opposed to the practice. But for the record, most “mainline” Protestant denominations do baptize infants, including Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists and other Reformed denominations, such as the Moravian Church. The Orthodox Churches also observe this ancient practice. In the Catholic Church we baptize infants because that is what we have always done. While Scripture doesn’t directly mention the practice, the reference to the baptism of “whole households” includes infants.

Further, St. Peter in Acts includes children when he requires baptism: “‘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. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call’” (Acts 2:38-39).

St. Paul says: “In [Christ] you were circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism …” (Col 2:11-12). Calling baptism the “circumcision of Christ” links it to a practice performed on the eighth day after birth. The analogy seems far less meaningful or sensible if only adults were baptized.

And, of course, Jesus said, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” (Mk 10:14). But later he adds, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” (Jn 3:5). So the little children belong to the kingdom but must enter in the water of baptism and the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, as to the practice of the early Church, infant baptism is clearly attested in numerous places. Hippolytus wrote in 215 A.D. about baptizing households or large groups: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (“The Apostolic Tradition” 21:16). 

As for confirmation, there is a widespread practice today in the Latin rite of delaying it until the teenage years. But this practice is only in the last hundred years. When Pope St. Pius X moved the reception of first Communion to age 7, confirmation was not similarly adjusted. This created an unnatural alteration in the order of the sacraments. Yet, our ancient custom is that confirmation is to be received before First Communion. This order is preserved today in the baptism of adults. In some dioceses there has been a restoration of the ancient order of the sacraments. Thus confirmation is given just prior to first Communion. While there are debates about when to give confirmation and how to teach of it, it is inarguably true that we are currently out of sync with our own tradition in the Latin rite.

In the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, confirmation and communion are given to infants on the day of baptism. Thus, an infant is fully initiated at baptism.

[lightman]

So your "salvation" depends on what YOU do for God in "accepting" and "believing" rather than what God did--and does--for us?

No, it depends on what YOU DO FOR YOU...

Amazing!

You Judaizing Pelagians have turned the precious gift of faith into a "work" that we must do to win God's favor.

You might as well bow to Mecca five times a day!

[Kickaha]

Because that priest would be attacked and killed. Islam IS the religion of peace, you know.

[Iscool]

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.”

NO, Paul has not...It would be easy to tear apart this entire little theses you put out but one correction should be enough to blow the rest of them out of the water...

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

So you guys even watch what you are reading??? Apparently not...

There is no water anywhere in this scripture...It's talking about a medical procedure like circumcision...An operation...No hands involved...So it's a spiritual operation...

So what's getting operated on??? The verse tells you...

You are standing there and contained within your being is a physical body, a soul and a spirit (1st TH 5:23)...They are all connected...The YOU part of you is your soul...Most people seem to think the YOU is your body, your flesh...But it's not...That's just a covering

The verse tells us that this 'operation' consists of God cutting away that body of the flesh from our 'inner man' (Eph 3:16)...

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

When this spiritual operation takes place we enter into a spiritual baptism (no water) where we are risen and buried with Jesus Christ through WATER
the faith of the operation of God...

Now this is the Catholic's water baptism:

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.

And what is John's baptism???

Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water;

And here in the rest of that verse is the spiritual baptism, the operation made with out hands that Paul speaks of:

but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

(Ever see the Holy Ghost sprinkling water on a baby, or anyone else?)

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.

They had already been baptized in water with John's baptism...Now they were getting baptized again, with the baptism of the Holy Ghost (no water)...

[Iscool]

Ask a Fundamentalist to show your their cherished "Sinner's Prayer" in the Bible and the grab the popcorn

YOu don't have time to throw a bag into the microwave...

Luk_18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

[Iscool]

Titus 3:5.

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

There is no water there...We are washed by regeneration, not water...

[AnalogReigns]

At least one parent should be a Christian—so the baptised child will be raised up in the faith. That’s why random sprinkling is not, and never has been, done.

In certain first-generation Christian countries (say. in Africa) if very young children are in a Christian school, they will be baptized, even if both parents are not Christians—as they will be raised up in the faith in the school.

“Knowledge and consent” are seen—for infants—in the hands of the parents, or to those (such as the school) to whom the parents have given oversight to.

[Mark17]

God saves through faith, not by the person getting wet.

You are correct MM. I got “wet” in the swimming pool at Bien Hoa Air Base, Republic of Vietnam, 6 months after I left the Roman Catholic Church. The guys that led me to TRUE faith in Christ, in Boise, ID, didn’t even mention water baptism at all. They didn’t think it was necessary to be saved. I don’t either. I simply did it, as an outward sign, of an inward change. It really is that simple. 😁👍

[Mark17]

I do wonder if “purgatory” is here on earth!

It’s in Colorado. 😁👍🤣

[daniel1212]

Back in the old days, princes of the church believed that dying without having been baptised was a route to hell. Solution? Infant baptism. New problem. They then decided sinning in a state of grace, ie, post-baptism, was worse than just sinning. Solution? Don’t get baptised until near death, ie, adult baptism. New problem. An unbaptised adult prince could fall off his horse, strike his head on a rock, and die hell-bound. Solution? Make up something called purgatory where baptised people who sinned anyway could work off their sins, then go on into heaven. No problem. Infant baptism to secure heaven until sins can be worked off. See? Religion’s easy if you make it up as you go along.

You forgot Limbo, though unofficial.

[trebb]

Whenever one’s salvation supposedly depends on the action of another, why not doubt?

[daniel1212]

Salvation Paul baptized several households that surely included infants.

I underlined the TWO assumption you are making. First that there were any infants. Second that the infants were baptized.

Of-course what can only be wished for are asserted as facts, since Scripture is am abused servant which is compelled to service the cultic Catholic devotee in his/her endeavour to present their elitist church as Biblical to Bible Christians. Thus in essence taking the name of the Lord in vain, and denying true faith. Oh the damnation that await such.

[daniel1212]

57] Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God.

Luther (who was still too Catholic) is plainly in error here, for once again, the command of Christ is to baptize believers, and which is the only thing exampled where there is any description of the cognitive ability of the subject. Instead, baptism is for those who can fulfill the stated requirement of wholehearted belief: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." All and all, Luther's cannot justify paedobaptism despite his verbosity.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19)

The subjects are the ones taught the gospel, that they are damned sinners in need of salvation, that that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47) which requires moral cognizance by the subject, which infants do not have, which ability awaits such.

Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. (Isaiah 7:15)

Then Peter said unto them, Repent , and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

Infants cannot comprehend the gospel, and choose repent, and have nothing to repent from, and are not damned due to what Adam did, though they suffer effects of his sin.

Thus,

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16; cf. 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20)

And baptism is never shown as being for the likes of infants, but is only shown to be for believers where anything more than a cursory mention of it is given:

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized , both men and women. (Acts 8:12)

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)

Likewise,

And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do . (Acts 9:6)

And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. (Acts 9:18)

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

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

And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul . And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. (Acts 16:14-15)

And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house . And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. (Acts 16:30-32)

And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. ( (Acts 16:32-34)

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. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:4-5)

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house ; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (Acts 18:8)

The few mentions of whole household baptisms do not mention infants,and all but one indicate the ability of the subjects to hear/comprehend and believe. And in some cases I would postulate that one as young as 3 or 4 may be able to comprehend the gospel and choose the Lord Jesus over sin.

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Corinthians 1:16-17)

The end.

[napscoordinator]

You atheists drive me nuts.

[Elsie]

 St. Peter in Acts includes children when he requires baptism: “‘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. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call’” (Acts 2:38-39).

 

And yet; amazingly; just 13 chapters later; the ENTIRE 'church' got together and AGREED...

 

 

 

Acts 15

The Council at Jerusalem

 ¹ Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." ² This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ³ The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. ⁴ When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

 ⁵ Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."

 ⁶ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ⁷ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. ⁸ God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹ He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

 ¹² The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. ¹³ When they finished, James spoke up. "Brothers," he said, "listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

 ¹⁶ "'After this I will return
   and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
 ¹⁸ things known from long ago.

 ¹⁹ "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰ Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹ For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers

 ²² Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. ²³ With them they sent the following letter:

   The apostles and elders, your brothers,

   To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

   Greetings.

 ²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

   Farewell.

 ³⁰ So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. ³¹ The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. ³² Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. ³³ After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. ^{[34] 35} But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas

 ³⁶ Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing." ³⁷ Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, ³⁸ but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. ³⁹ They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, ⁴⁰ but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. ⁴¹ He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

Looks like they FORGOT to mention this baptism thing that has gotten SOME people into 'sharp dispute and debate'!

 

 

[Elsie]

Baptizing babies doesn't send them to heaven or hell.

That's why they make Brown Scapulas in the Infant size!!

---

 

For a low; LOW! price of ONLY $11.95...

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.catholiccompany.com/brown-scapular-brown-cord-18-inch-i104714/?sku=2026726&utm_source=google&utm_medium=products&aid=4280&product_id=2026726&creative=11070181829&device=c&matchtype=e

 

 

[Elsie]

The Bible uses the strongest language to say baptism is essential for salvation.

I guess that Jesus was 'saved' when John baptized Him.

[Elsie]

If it was why did Jesus insist on it.

HMMMmmm…

---

Matthew 3:13-15

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”
Then John consented.

[Elsie]

Let's pick one from the middle of the list:

 

 

Ephesians 5:25-26 English Standard Version (ESV)

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, ²⁶ that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 

 

 

HMMMmmm... doesn't sound at ALL like baptism to me!

[Elsie]

Why WOULDN’T you baptize an infant?

I think this has been answered adequately by now.

---

They need all of the above just as much as adults do!

You might think infants 'need' a lot of things; but they are in no way capable of using them until they are older.

[Elsie]

...Catholic devotee in his/her endeavour to present their elitist church as Biblical to Bible Christians.

The Catholics say, "Those seven churches in Revelation are all Catholic."

The Bible Christian says, "Houston; Rome has a problem."