Risk Management for Infant Baptism

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

According to wikipedia, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued on 20 October 1980 included some instruction on infant baptism.

The instruction gave “guidelines for pastoral practice, based on two principles. The major principle is that baptism, as the sign and means of God's love that precedes any action on our part and that frees from original sin and communicates divine life, must not be delayed. The subordinate principle is that assurances must be given that the gift thus granted can grow by authentic education in the faith and Christian life. If these assurances are not really serious, there can be grounds for delaying baptism. If they are certainly absent, the sacrament should even be refused.”

Here are my thoughts. It is clear that the Catholic higher-ups see risks associated with infant baptism. In fact, the risks are so great that the sacrament should be refused in the absence of assurances that the infant will receive authentic education in the faith.

But this does not make sense. If the major principle is true, why should they refuse to set the baby free from sin and confer to him eternal life just because of his parents? Why not dispense with the subordinate principle and baptize every baby in the world as soon as they are born? That’s what I would do if i believed the major principle.

 

[HTacianas]

According to wikipedia, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued on 20 October 1980 included some instruction on infant baptism.

The instruction gave “guidelines for pastoral practice, based on two principles. The major principle is that baptism, as the sign and means of God's love that precedes any action on our part and that frees from original sin and communicates divine life, must not be delayed. The subordinate principle is that assurances must be given that the gift thus granted can grow by authentic education in the faith and Christian life. If these assurances are not really serious, there can be grounds for delaying baptism. If they are certainly absent, the sacrament should even be refused.”

Here are my thoughts. It is clear that the Catholic higher-ups see risks associated with infant baptism. In fact, the risks are so great that the sacrament should be refused in the absence of assurances that the infant will receive authentic education in the faith.

But this does not make sense. If the major principle is true, why should they refuse to set the baby free from sin and confer to him eternal life just because of his parents? Why not dispense with the subordinate principle and baptize every baby in the world as soon as they are born? That’s what I would do if i believed the major principle.

It goes back to the days of Tertullian. Tertullian questioned the propriety of infant baptism because, as he put it, the child may grow up to have a bad disposition. That was around the same time the Church decided to grant absolution for mortal sin after baptism. In the early Church there was no absolution for mortal sin after baptism. See the controversy between Hippolytus and Calixtus I of Rome. A strict reading of the new testament shows that there is in fact no forgiveness of mortal sin after baptism, see Hebrews 10:26-31. There was also no forgiveness for those who fell away from the faith after baptism, see Hebrews 6:4-8.

What the Roman Church is saying in this case is that it might be best for a child who may not be brought up in the faith to forego baptism until later when they are mature enough to continue in the faith. Either way there is a risk. A child might die before being baptized if it is put off, but the child might fall away from the faith before reaching an age of maturity.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

It goes back to the days of Tertullian. Tertullian questioned the propriety of infant baptism because, as he put it, the child may grow up to have a bad disposition. That was around the same time the Church decided to grant absolution for mortal sin after baptism. In the early Church there was no absolution for mortal sin after baptism. See the controversy between Hippolytus and Calixtus I of Rome. A strict reading of the new testament shows that there is in fact no forgiveness of mortal sin after baptism, see Hebrews 10:26-31. There was also no forgiveness for those who fell away from the faith after baptism, see Hebrews 6:4-8.

What the Roman Church is saying in this case is that it might be best for a child who may not be brought up in the faith to forego baptism until later when they are mature enough to continue in the faith. Either way there is a risk. A child might die before being baptized if it is put off, but the child might fall away from the faith before reaching an age of maturity.

I didn't think about that angle. Sounds like the answer to me.

But it brings up another question. If we all only have one shot at salvation, would it be wise to put it off until later in life so we don't waste it on our youth? Well, maybe not. You never know when you're gonna die. Man, this is tricky.

 

[eleos1954]

According to wikipedia, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued on 20 October 1980 included some instruction on infant baptism.

The instruction gave “guidelines for pastoral practice, based on two principles. The major principle is that baptism, as the sign and means of God's love that precedes any action on our part and that frees from original sin and communicates divine life, must not be delayed. The subordinate principle is that assurances must be given that the gift thus granted can grow by authentic education in the faith and Christian life. If these assurances are not really serious, there can be grounds for delaying baptism. If they are certainly absent, the sacrament should even be refused.”

Here are my thoughts. It is clear that the Catholic higher-ups see risks associated with infant baptism. In fact, the risks are so great that the sacrament should be refused in the absence of assurances that the infant will receive authentic education in the faith.

But this does not make sense. If the major principle is true, why should they refuse to set the baby free from sin and confer to him eternal life just because of his parents? Why not dispense with the subordinate principle and baptize every baby in the world as soon as they are born? That’s what I would do if i believed the major principle.

Baptism is based upon a conscious decision to confess and repent of your sins and to accept Jesus as your Savior
Infants are too young to understand this.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Baptism is based upon a conscious decision to confess and repent of your sins and to accept Jesus as your Savior
Infants are too young to understand this.

That certainly is the model presented in the New Testament. I'll leave it to those who disagree with you to argue their position.

 

[BobRyan]

According to wikipedia, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued on 20 October 1980 included some instruction on infant baptism.

The instruction gave “guidelines for pastoral practice, based on two principles. The major principle is that baptism, as the sign and means of God's love that precedes any action on our part and that frees from original sin and communicates divine life, must not be delayed.

It appears to me - that the Bible has zero support for "The ... principle .. that baptism, is the sign and means of God's love that precedes any action on our part and that frees from original sin and communicates divine life"

In all cases in the Bible -- it is "repent and be baptized" not "be baptized then repent"

In 1 Peter 3 the Baptism "that saves" is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" on the part of the one being baptized which means baptism has to follow that choice. It does not "precede all action on our part"

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

The Bible has zero support for "The ... principle .. that baptism, is the sign and means of God's love that precedes any action on our part and that frees from original sin and communicates divine life"

In all cases it is "repent and be baptized" not "be baptized then repent"

In 1 Peter 3 the Baptism "that saves" is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" on the part of the one being baptized which means baptism has to follow that choice. It does not "precede all action on our part"

There is no Biblical support for baptizing babies, there is no biblical support for witholding baptism on the basis of lack of familial support, and as you mentioned, there is no biblibcal support that baptism preceeds any action on our part. So, biblical support aparently is not a necesity.

I never noticed that the verb, ἐπερώτημα, in 1 Peter 3:21 is translated as "appeal" in NASB and ESV and as "pledge" in NIV and HCSB. That certainly gives it a different flavor verses "answer" in KJV and NKJV.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is more or less the position of all traditional and ancient churches, including Lutherans, Methodists, and the Reformed. Baptism should not be performed on infants that won't be raised in the faith. While baptism is a means of grace, it should not be used carelessly.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... precedes any action on our part ...

In all cases in the Bible -- it is "repent and be baptized" not "be baptized then repent"

In 1 Peter 3 the Baptism "that saves" is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" on the part of the one being baptized which means baptism has to follow that choice. It does not "precede all action on our part"

The highlighted phrase is just like those protestants who likewise forget to distinguish between fruits of grace and the works of the flesh.

As we see time our way, it's better not to confuse ourselves.

I suppose it could refer to a sort of "logical precedence" but even that by being shorthand, risks devaluing our human discretion or the assurance-based discretion of our parents.

The message is only too clearly presented as "we've got our claws into you so don't you dare think of anything".

Much of my catechesis came from outside our "communion" for which I'm grateful (but that was then not now).