Infant Baptism *Catholic Subforum*

[anna ~ grace]

Theologically, been combing through the concept of being "born again", and have realized that I still latch on to the Evangelical definition without knowing or understanding the Catholic stance on this.

So, I checked. Baptism. Infant baptism.

Which made no sense to me, until I thought about it. If spiritual birth is compared to natural birth, it makes sense. As infants, we don't ask to be conceived, born, or brought into the world. We don't cooperate or have a say in our existence. We also don't know anything. We are brought into the world helpless, ignorant, and needing lots of help and instruction. We can't even feed ourselves. We can't even talk. Yet no one would claim that we are not alive or not human simply because we are not fully functional adults.

The same can be said of infant baptism. True, we can not make a profession of faith, but we are still a body and a soul born into a fallen world, needing redemption, suffering the effects of original sin, and in need of grace. Christ died to save all mankind. All humans. Not just adult humans. Just my thoughts.

What do you guys think? Did any of you struggle with this?

 

[Michie]

I used to struggle with it but it finally dawned on me when God made His covenant through circumcision in the OT that it seemed the natural progression of things would lead to baptism. Including infants.

Theologically, been combing through the concept of being "born again", and have realized that I still latch on to the Evangelical definition without knowing or understanding the Catholic stance on this.

So, I checked. Baptism. Infant baptism.

Which made no sense to me, until I thought about it. If spiritual birth is compared to natural birth, it makes sense. As infants, we don't ask to be conceived, born, or brought into the world. We don't cooperate or have a say in our existence. We also don't know anything. We are brought into the world helpless, ignorant, and needing lots of help and instruction. We can't even feed ourselves. We can't even talk. Yet no one would claim that we are not alive or not human simply because we are not fully functional adults.

The same can be said of infant baptism. True, we can not make a profession of faith, but we are still a body and a soul born into a fallen world, needing redemption, suffering the effects of original sin, and in need of grace. Christ died to save all mankind. All humans. Not just adult humans. Just my thoughts.

What do you guys think? Did any of you struggle with this?

 

[anna ~ grace]

I used to struggle with it but it finally dawned on me when God made His covenant through circumcision in the OT that it seemed the natural progression of things would lead to baptism. Including infants.

That's neat. True. An infant was born into Israel. Circumcision was a commandment kept for them by their parents, before they could keep any of the Law. So clearly, grace available through Moses was still working, even on an infant. Nice!

 

[Cis.jd]

Theologically, been combing through the concept of being "born again", and have realized that I still latch on to the Evangelical definition without knowing or understanding the Catholic stance on this.

So, I checked. Baptism. Infant baptism.

Which made no sense to me, until I thought about it. If spiritual birth is compared to natural birth, it makes sense. As infants, we don't ask to be conceived, born, or brought into the world. We don't cooperate or have a say in our existence. We also don't know anything. We are brought into the world helpless, ignorant, and needing lots of help and instruction. We can't even feed ourselves. We can't even talk. Yet no one would claim that we are not alive or not human simply because we are not fully functional adults.

The same can be said of infant baptism. True, we can not make a profession of faith, but we are still a body and a soul born into a fallen world, needing redemption, suffering the effects of original sin, and in need of grace. Christ died to save all mankind. All humans. Not just adult humans. Just my thoughts.

What do you guys think? Did any of you struggle with this?

Sure, I do have struggles questioning this as well as many other things. With Infant baptism I just look at it as a tradition. I'm sure there are good Catholic defenses to support it Biblically, but a practical approach for me is just to accept it as a tradition.

I remember reading that the early Christians did this because they where being murdered left and right at any age, including infants. So just to make sure they would be practicing and entering the new covenant that Christ established, they would baptized their infants. It's just keeping Jesus' teachings and what he did alive in us. Even today, we do not know exactly when we will die. We don't know if the our children will die the day they are born or any time after so why not enter them through the ways of the new covenant early as a way to keep in practice what Jesus passed down?

This is my explanation. There is always a "biblical verse" that people use to throw at each other for doctrines such as this, since we are of the church we can also utilize history and the sociological understanding of it i guess.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Theologically, been combing through the concept of being "born again", and have realized that I still latch on to the Evangelical definition without knowing or understanding the Catholic stance on this.

So, I checked. Baptism. Infant baptism.

Which made no sense to me, until I thought about it. If spiritual birth is compared to natural birth, it makes sense. As infants, we don't ask to be conceived, born, or brought into the world. We don't cooperate or have a say in our existence. We also don't know anything. We are brought into the world helpless, ignorant, and needing lots of help and instruction. We can't even feed ourselves. We can't even talk. Yet no one would claim that we are not alive or not human simply because we are not fully functional adults.

The same can be said of infant baptism. True, we can not make a profession of faith, but we are still a body and a soul born into a fallen world, needing redemption, suffering the effects of original sin, and in need of grace. Christ died to save all mankind. All humans. Not just adult humans. Just my thoughts.

What do you guys think? Did any of you struggle with this?

I didn't struggle with it, yet to me I found it baffling how Protestants had trouble identifying being born again with being baptized.

For me, baptism is an unmerited grace. Where God first moved and all I had to do was be the recipient. No Pelagianism here.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I didn't struggle with it, yet to me I found it baffling how Protestants had trouble identifying being born again with being baptized.

For me, baptism is an unmerited grace. Where God first moved and all I had to do was be the recipient. No Pelagianism here.

Yeah. I came to Christ in a Baptist church, and that was a huge struggle for a while. Understandably, the Baptists are mega proud of their credo-baptism.

Then, I began to notice them baptizing five year olds, and began to wonder "what's the difference?" Also, I noticed that those baptized as teenagers could eventually fall away, too. So, credo-baptism wasn't magic or a guarantee of perseverance, any more than pedo-baptism.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Sure, I do have struggles questioning this as well as many other things. With Infant baptism I just look at it as a tradition. I'm sure there are good Catholic defenses to support it Biblically, but a practical approach for me is just to accept it as a tradition.

I remember reading that the early Christians did this because they where being murdered left and right at any age, including infants. So just to make sure they would be practicing and entering the new covenant that Christ established, they would baptized their infants. It's just keeping Jesus' teachings and what he did alive in us. Even today, we do not know exactly when we will die. We don't know if the our children will die the day they are born or any time after so why not enter them through the ways of the new covenant early as a way to keep in practice what Jesus passed down?

This is my explanation. There is always a "biblical verse" that people use to throw at each other for doctrines such as this, since we are of the church we can also utilize history and the sociological understanding of it i guess.

Yeah. For me, this, too, is in the "Church, but not necessarily Scripture" category.

Training my brain away from Sola Scriptura has been a battle.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yeah. I came to Christ in a Baptist church, and that was a huge struggle for a while. Understandably, the Baptists are mega proud of their credo-baptism.

Whereas I can take no pride in getting myself baptized. It wasn't me AT ALL. It was all grace. Unmerited.

Then, I began to notice them baptizing five year olds, and began to wonder "what's the difference?" Also, I noticed that those baptized as teenagers could eventually fall away, too. So, credo-baptism wasn't magic or a guarantee of perseverance, any more than pedo-baptism.

I like the idea of baptizing adults, other than the totally unmerited aspect of paedo-baptism. People do fall away, and the Baptists may have some trouble comprehending that doctrinally with their OSAS dogma of man.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Theologically, been combing through the concept of being "born again", and have realized that I still latch on to the Evangelical definition without knowing or understanding the Catholic stance on this.

So, I checked. Baptism. Infant baptism.

Which made no sense to me, until I thought about it. If spiritual birth is compared to natural birth, it makes sense. As infants, we don't ask to be conceived, born, or brought into the world. We don't cooperate or have a say in our existence. We also don't know anything. We are brought into the world helpless, ignorant, and needing lots of help and instruction. We can't even feed ourselves. We can't even talk. Yet no one would claim that we are not alive or not human simply because we are not fully functional adults.

The same can be said of infant baptism. True, we can not make a profession of faith, but we are still a body and a soul born into a fallen world, needing redemption, suffering the effects of original sin, and in need of grace. Christ died to save all mankind. All humans. Not just adult humans. Just my thoughts.

What do you guys think? Did any of you struggle with this?

I'm a convert and I thought I would struggle with the concept of infant baptism. But frankly, this whole idea of "believer's baptism" is actually what needs to be defended. Sacred Scripture is not very precise about who should be baptized, when and how. Protestants only think that it is because they're projecting their own traditions onto the text. The text itself isn't too specific.

But we do know that infant baptism goes far back in history. Infant baptism fits with the Early Church's attitudes, beliefs and practices. The historical record is perfectly clear and it harmonizes well with Sacred Scripture.

If someone rejects infant baptism, they're the ones who need to justify their shaky, questionable, ahistorical tradition.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yeah. For me, this, too, is in the "Church, but not necessarily Scripture" category.

Training my brain away from Sola Scriptura has been a battle.

I have found that Scripture enlightened by Catholic Tradition (and the Jewish Tradition behind it) is way beyond the tradition of Sola Scriptura interpretation of Scripture. I was influenced heavily by Protestants early on, and they introduced me to a skepticism a bit beyond healthy. Also a real reverence for Scripture which has been very healthy. Sometimes though it worked out like I was expected to reject Catholic teaching to comply with a Protestant reading of the Bible.

Reading the Scriptures in keeping with the analogy of faith, with the Fathers, with the historical understandings of the early Church and of the religion of the Israel, things take on a profound meaning. I learn something new almost every day. For example, I have been looking at the parallels between Rachel and Joseph and Benjamin on the one hand and Mary and Jesus and John. It's uncanny. The Jews would ask Rachel to pray for them, much as we ask Mary to pray for us. I don't know if I could have seen that ever with only a Sola Scriptura mindset. So much more. The Bible is alive when read as a Catholic. And so deep. The Protestant contentions fall away one after another as uninformed.

 

[Cis.jd]

Yeah. For me, this, too, is in the "Church, but not necessarily Scripture" category.

Training my brain away from Sola Scriptura has been a battle.

Luckily there are thousands of Sola Scripturas'.. I'm not sure what you've been into specifically, but there are a number of protestant sects who do believe in Infant Baptism.

 

[Tigger45]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

ARTICLE 1
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5



The Baptism of infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

 

[zippy2006]

Theologically, been combing through the concept of being "born again", and have realized that I still latch on to the Evangelical definition without knowing or understanding the Catholic stance on this.

So, I checked. Baptism. Infant baptism.

Which made no sense to me, until I thought about it. If spiritual birth is compared to natural birth, it makes sense. As infants, we don't ask to be conceived, born, or brought into the world. We don't cooperate or have a say in our existence. We also don't know anything. We are brought into the world helpless, ignorant, and needing lots of help and instruction. We can't even feed ourselves. We can't even talk. Yet no one would claim that we are not alive or not human simply because we are not fully functional adults.

The same can be said of infant baptism. True, we can not make a profession of faith, but we are still a body and a soul born into a fallen world, needing redemption, suffering the effects of original sin, and in need of grace. Christ died to save all mankind. All humans. Not just adult humans. Just my thoughts.

What do you guys think? Did any of you struggle with this?

For Evangelicals, being "born again" is a kind of baptism of the Holy Spirit that precedes water baptism. Catholics interpret John 3 to refer to water baptism, but the focus is on baptism in general rather than either infant or adult baptism.

Technically adult baptism is theologically primary. This is because desire, faith, and repentance are necessary dispositions for baptism, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us. In the special case of infant baptism we say that the faith of the parents, godparents, and larger Church "stands in" for the faith of the infant:

It may not be doubted that in Baptism infants receive the mysterious gifts of faith. Not that they believe with the assent of the mind, but they are established in the faith of their parents, if the parents profess the true faith; if not--to use the words of St. Augustine--then in that of the universal society of the saints; for they are rightly said to be presented for Baptism by all those to whom their initiation in that sacred rite is a source of joy, and by whose charity they are united to the communion of the Holy Ghost. (Catechism of the Council of Trent on Baptism)​

 

[anna ~ grace]

Thanks, guys. I also feel like there could be a tie-in between infant baptism, and being pro-life. Infants are humans, too, in need of saving. They have souls and bodies, and need grace. If they are fully human outside of the womb and can be brought into the Church as infants, how more human are they inside the womb?

 

[anna ~ grace]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

ARTICLE 1
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5



The Baptism of infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

Thank you, Tigger!

 

[anna ~ grace]

For Evangelicals, being "born again" is a kind of baptism of the Holy Spirit that precedes water baptism. Catholics interpret John 3 to refer to water baptism, but the focus is on baptism in general rather than either infant or adult baptism.

Technically adult baptism is theologically primary. This is because desire, faith, and repentance are necessary dispositions for baptism, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us. In the special case of infant baptism we say that the faith of the parents, godparents, and larger Church "stands in" for the faith of the infant:

It may not be doubted that in Baptism infants receive the mysterious gifts of faith. Not that they believe with the assent of the mind, but they are established in the faith of their parents, if the parents profess the true faith; if not--to use the words of St. Augustine--then in that of the universal society of the saints; for they are rightly said to be presented for Baptism by all those to whom their initiation in that sacred rite is a source of joy, and by whose charity they are united to the communion of the Holy Ghost. (Catechism of the Council of Trent on Baptism)​

I need to actually sit down and read Trent.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I need to actually sit down and read Trent.

When you do, be aware that some of the anathemas are constructed from fragments of comments by reformers and they aren't always reflecting the mature thought of the reformers as they condemn various positions. The meat is in their positive statements more so than what they condemn. As an experiment one could propose the positive statements of faith from Trent along with various statements of the reformers to see if someone can actually tell which is which.

 

[narnia59]

A couple of things to consider if infant Baptism was not intended to be the norm:

1) If prior to becoming a Christian one has to be intellectually developed to the point to profess faith, there is no such thing as a Christian child. Christianity would be a religion that excludes children. No children allowed in the body of Christ.

2) Supernatural, saving faith now becomes something a person qualifies for based upon intellect as opposed to being a free gift from God.

 

[chevyontheriver]

A couple of things to consider if infant Baptism was not intended to be the norm:
...
2) Supernatural, saving faith now becomes something a person qualifies for based upon intellect as opposed to being a free gift from God.

Not merely intellect but intellect and will, an act and even a work. Few Catholics have works righteousness because as infants we never merited baptism. It was all grace, only grace. Grace which started the movement in us.

 

[prodromos]

Given all the above, why does the Roman rite not commune baptised infants? Surely the same arguments apply as with infant baptism?