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.

[Elsie]

For Christ sent me not to baptize,

Why NOT; Paul?

If it's SO 'damned' important???

[Mark17]

When I was in grade school, I wore the scapular all the time. When I got to high school, none of us wore it, but I don’t remember why. It’s just a superstition, like the Mormon magic underwear. 😁

[Elsie]

Luther (who was still too Catholic) is plainly in error here, for once again...

WHAT???

Am I to believe that LUTHER is actually being used to try to back up a Catholic teaching?

HMMMmmm...

[Elsie]

It’s just a superstition, like the Mormon magic underwear.

Not quite.

At least the Catholics had some kind of Apparition commend the Scapula to them; but I've nowhere found that any Personage type ever gave the instructions that are practiced by hopeful Mormons about the GARMENT; which has changed in style over the years.

[metmom]

Why risk a child going to hell? Doesn’t make sense. So many fake religions say wait till your older. Idiots. Thank God I’m catholic and baptized appropriately a few weeks after birth. I feel sorry for all the other fake religions. Catholic and Jewish religions are the only two religions not man made.

If baptism saves, then why did Jesus die?

Besides, I thought being sure of where you were going when you died, that you were going to heaven, was the sin of *presumption*.

[daniel1212]

Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children,

Which is more (we need your money) Catholic Answers (https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism) lying sophistry, even if you did not provide the link (not that we regulars would think you wrote it) which relies upon strawmen and or abuse of Scripture. First off, fundamentalists (for years i was a Fundamentalist Baptist, and you do not get more "Fundamental" as per the RC use than that) do not characteristically teach baptism is only for adults and older children, for I have seen kids as young a 4 be baptized. What the RC avoids is that the ability to fulfill the manifest and or stated condition for baptism is the issue, which the Catholic ignores.

According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again,"

Which as shown, is wholly Biblical:

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:43-47)

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 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 15:7-9)

In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.

What a terrible thought! Innocent infants going to Heaven, as if they would be punished for something they had not part in from the moment of conception.

Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.

Meaning the alternative is that they must decide to repent and believe on Him from the moment of conception.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39).

By which attempted abuse of Scripture the RC shoots himself in the foot, for it actually teaches what he wants to condemn: that baptism requires moral cognizance, to understand what Peter preached, and resulted in manifest "what shall we do?" conviction.

We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16).

Likewise. Can and do infants do this? NO!

for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5).

Which nowhere mentions baptism as being referred to, and instead, as is characteristic of John, the physical and the spiritual are set in juxtaposition:

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:4-5)

"Born of water corresponds to the mention of physical birth by Nicodemus. Likewise that which follows,

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)

Thus there are only two kinds of birth, of water and the Spirit. of flesh and Spirit

And Acts 10+15 is the definitive teaching on this, in which lost souls heard the gospel, and were promise forgiveness if they believed, and which they manifestly did, and then were baptized, God having purified their heart by faith.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:43-47)

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 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 15:7-9)

Which reveals that it was the faith behind baptism in Acts 2:38 that effected regeneration, for as said, since baptism properly requires and expresses faith, so the promise of the Spirit is made to those repent and are baptized in identification with their Lord Jesus.

‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16)...Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him"..Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven."

Which simply does not teach that they even needed baptism, much less that there were being baptized, which Caths can only wish it did. For it is clearly taught that those who could and did believe were baptized, and nowhere that infants were.

If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

Bad hermeneutic, for based upon require full correspondence then women are excluded, while on the other hand lost adult souls were circumcised without conversion. (Gn. 34) And while circumcision was specifically enjoined for infants, and also for them without a manifest precondition of faith, nowhere is it for infants in the NT., where faith is the precondition. In addition, one can see by the analogies of Christ then there need not be full correspondence ("go to them that sell..." - Mt. 25:9) .

The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith.

Which simply lacks full correspondence to what Catholicism teaches, for she exhorts baptism even of infants who have no opportunity or expectation of being "raised in the faith."

Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will.

Again, this is not accurate.

They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view.

Actually, that baptism is for those who are able to hear and respond to the word is what numerous texts does not explicitly support, while that infants are to be baptized is what Catholics insist texts "should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view."

there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Really? So children such as of those 3k+ souls born again in Acts 2 would not have raised their kids in Christian homes, and even have at least teenagers by the time the NT was competed? This apologist not only sees what Scripture does not teach, but also what it does:

When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also. (2 Timothy 1:5)

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ."

That requirement "proves too much," for in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized as an infant.

Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3).

Which is consistent with fundamental churches who baptize children as soon as they can testify to volitional saving faith. In contrast, as meaning infant baptism that is simply blatant, unwarranted presumption and more abuse of Scripture. For instead those who were being addressed in Rm 6 were believers:

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you . (Romans 6:17)

If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Conversely, If infant baptism was the rule, then we should have references to infant of Christian parents being baptized, and there are no such records in the Bible. But if believers baptism was the rule,, then we should have references to such joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are many such records in the Bible.

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16). ..Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants.

And in every case of baptism save for the mere mention of the household of Stephanas, the ability to hear/comprehend and thus believe is stated or implied, as was shown.

Thus once again the CA apologist strikes out.

Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism.

Of course, since the uninspired writings of such simply cannot be determintive of what the NT church believed, and often testify to the progressive accretion of traditions of men which are simply not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

Thus this pilfered polemic is manifest as prevaricating propaganda.

[daniel1212]

That is the same number of post-Pentecost infant dedications in the NT as well.

Maybe you forgot,

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) (Luke 2:22-23)

But if that is disallowed as dedication, it would mean it cannot be certain this was a practice of the NT church, yet unlike baptism, it is for infants where it occurs in the OT, and is consistent with the principle of consecration.

And she vowed a vow, and said, O Lord of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head. (1 Samuel 1:11)

[daniel1212]

This is from the Bible. Did it get taken out of yours? John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. I'll take these words of Jesus any day. Why don't you?

Of course we are to take them any day, but unlike those who abuse Scripture by isolationist exegesis, including making the gospels interpretive of how the NT church believe them, we are to examine words in context and in the light of all Scripture.

one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5).

Which nowhere mentions baptism as being referred to, and instead, as is characteristic of John, the physical and the spiritual are set in juxtaposition:

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:4-5)

"Born of water corresponds to the mention of physical birth by Nicodemus. Likewise that which follows,

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)

Thus there are only two kinds of birth, of water and the Spirit. of flesh and Spirit

And Acts 10+15 is the definitive teaching on this, in which lost souls heard the gospel, and were promise forgiveness if they believed, and which they manifestly did, and then were baptized, God having purified their heart by faith.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:43-47)

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 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 15:7-9)

Which reveals that it was the faith behind baptism in Acts 2:38 that effected regeneration, for as said, since baptism properly requires and expresses faith, so the promise of the Spirit is made to those repent and are baptized in identification with their Lord Jesus.

The promise is not that the act itself of baptism effects regeneration, nor by proxy faith as in heretical Catholicism, but receiving the promise is contingent upon obeying the command, which requires repentance, which means believing.

[P.O.E.]

IIRC, doesn’t it also represent a welcoming?

[Mark17]

At least the Catholics had some kind of Apparition commend the Scapula to them; but I've nowhere found that any Personage type ever gave the instructions that are practiced by hopeful Mormons about the GARMENT; which has changed in style over the years.

Maybe the angel Moroni told Joe Smith about it, but he just forgot to write it down. Anyway, that’s my story, and I am sticking with it. 😁🤣

[Mark17]

Besides, I thought being sure of where you were going when you died, that you were going to heaven, was the sin of *presumption*.

Praise God for the sin of presumption. 😁🤣👍😊😂 Actually, the truth of the matter is, having assurance of salvation is NOT a sin at all. It’s a blessing. The Word of God is VERY clear on that. If others have no assurance, maybe they are involved in a works based religion. That’s on them.

[ealgeone]

BOOM!

[aimhigh]

Excellent post at 212. Thanks.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Hilarious! Thanks.

[the OlLine Rebel]

After reading something of this thread, I have to make just a small comment or two. Not being a great scholar of the Bible or all churches.

-Not all Protestants are the same.

-Again, not a big expert but I have long been a graveyard aficionado; most if not all old churchyards (graveyard of a church, directly attached) bury all unbaptized outside the official yard. Apparently, baptism was pretty important to many of these denominations.

[daniel1212]

Looks like they FORGOT to mention this baptism thing that has gotten SOME people into 'sharp dispute and debate'! They were teaching that "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved," like as regenerationists teach "unless infants are baptized according to the custom taught by Jesus, they cannot be saved.

Note that circumcision was an everlasting covenant,

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. (Genesis 17:7)

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. (Genesis 17:10-12)

Those who argue circumcision as fully corespondent to baptism must therefore present the later as a "token," as symbolism as the former was. And addressed primarily to infants. But if they allow for distinctions, then they should not dismiss the manifest differences, principally that believing with the whole heart is a requirement, and those who could heard and believe were the subjects of the commands to be baptized, and nowhere are parents commanded to baptize their infants. In stark contrast to regenerationists.

[daniel1212]

Excellent post at 212.

But many RCs seem to think we must follow Luther like a pope. Well, like they used to say a pope should be followed.

[sparklite2]

I haven’t a clue?

Here’s the dictionary definition of purgatory ...

(in Roman Catholic doctrine) a place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating their sins before going to heaven.

How this differs from what I explained in my post is left for the reader to decide.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

As I mentioned upthread, my church began in the mind and heart of God in eternity past, when He purposed to create and then redeem mankind.

Back before the creation of time, before Adam and Eve, and before the creation of Israel that produced Messiah.

If you are interested, my profile describes my church further - the only church God created.

[lightman]

Luther (who was still too Catholicc).....

LOL.

It has been a long time since I've heard/read a Romophobe accusing Luther of being "too Catholic".