WHY INFANT BAPTISM.

[GodsGrace]

It backfires because you say that:

1. For a person to be saved he must believe first.

2. Infants should not be baptised because they are not able to believe.

Putting 1 and 2 together means that infants cannot be saved. I hope you don't agree with that conclusion. So at least one of the statements upon which your conclusion is based must be false.

I'm more than positive that you've heard of the age of accountability.
A baby is NOT responsible for anyone's sins but his own.
A baby does not have sins. He is not able to sin.

As a baby grows older, he actually does sin.
He can steal at the age of 3 or so.
He can lie.
He can mistreat his friends and act in very unchristian-like ways.

But does God count this as sin?
NO.

Because, as you know, in order for an act to be a sin,,a person must be AWARE of the fact that he is sinning and he must knowingly commit that sin.

This does not happen until the age of accountability.
Do you know that most kids at the age of about 8 do not even believe they have ever sinned?
We must TEACH them what sin is,,,,and what confession is for.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."


1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.


1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.


Children do not know about the moral law until they are taught,
and so are not held responsible due to their ignorance.

 

[GodsGrace]

Can you please explain this. Can an infant, who is not able to believe, desire to be baptised?

I was speaking of adults....
do you think I'm an idiot?

 

[Tradidi]

I was speaking of adults....
do you think I'm an idiot?

Then why did you give this in reply to an argument against infant baptism, in a thread about infant baptism?

No, I don't think you're an idiot, but I do think you are not thinking through the implications of some of your statements.

 

[GodsGrace]

Only an adult can do all of the above (hear, accept, repent, profess, receive baptism), but that does not mean that an infant cannot do some of the above, i.e. receive baptism. The same Catechism you referred to states that this is a historical fact, not a theory. If you are an adult, then you must indeed do all of the above otherwise your baptism will be invalid. If you're an infant, your parents, your guardians or the minister if necessary will do some of these on your behalf.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the alternative conclusion would be that infants cannot be saved. That is not only unscriptural, it is also absurd.



The Early Church Fathers told us that infant baptism was handed down from the Apostles. That is fact enough for me.



I cannot speak for what some priests have said and done. If you search you will easily find many heretical and apostate priests today. But one does not judge the law by those who break it. What matters is what the Church has taught. And if the Church has not taught it yet, then one may have an opinion as long as this opinion does not contradict anything that the Church has already declared to be believed.

And no, the Catechism does not fall under the infallible teachings of the Church. There are many Catechisms, some good, some bad, some even heretical. But this is NOT the topic of this thread.

I'm not speaking of A catechism.
I'm quoting THE catechism.

The one commissioned by Pope John Paul and published in 1992 with HIS authority.
Is the Pope a member of the magesterium?
I would certainly say so.

If you do not accept the CCC as authoritative,,,,then what would you accept?
The Council of Trent?
The ECFs?

As to what priests think and say----
it usually comes about by the trickle down theory:
The high ups in the church have a doctrine they would approve of...
most times it would be the Pope.
Then it trickles down to the Bishop.
Then it trickles down to priests.

Priests do not the rules make....
they just follow them.

I'm stating facts here, not THEORY.
I never used the word theory in my writings to you.

And yes, ONLY AN ADULT can do all of the above:
hear, accept, repent, confess.......
Thanks for confirming this.

Infants do not need to be baptized....
As I've said many times before to you....the ECFs baptized infants, but it was Augustine
that taught they would go to hell if they were NOT baptized. It was Augustine that taught that we are Imputed with Adam's sin.

I'll post a simple link again:

Original sin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maybe you'd like to listen to the following:

 

[Tradidi]

I'm more than positive that you've heard of the age of accountability.
A baby is NOT responsible for anyone's sins but his own.
A baby does not have sins. He is not able to sin.

As a baby grows older, he actually does sin.
He can steal at the age of 3 or so.
He can lie.
He can mistreat his friends and act in very unchristian-like ways.

But does God count this as sin?
NO.

Because, as you know, in order for an act to be a sin,,a person must be AWARE of the fact that he is sinning and he must knowingly commit that sin.

This does not happen until the age of accountability.
Do you know that most kids at the age of about 8 do not even believe they have ever sinned?
We must TEACH them what sin is,,,,and what confession is for.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."


1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.


1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.


Children do not know about the moral law until they are taught,
and so are not held responsible due to their ignorance.

In other words, you deny the existence of original sin now, even though elsewhere on this forum you argued for the existence of original sin? Or am I missing something?

 

[GodsGrace]

Then why did you give this in reply to an argument against infant baptism, in a thread about infant baptism?

No, I don't think you're an idiot, but I do think you are not thinking through the implications of some of your statements.

Come on...keep up.
Here is what I said: (post no. 34)

How does it backfire Tradidi?
To be saved a person MUST BELIEVE.

AFTER a person believes, he must be baptized.

IF he dies before baptism,,he will still be saved
because of the Baptism of Desire.

No one who believes in God will die lost.


Can a baby have the Baptism of Desire?
NO!

My point was that adults should be baptized and not infants.
And I've also stated why infants were baptized and why it changed with Augustine.

 

[GodsGrace]

In other words, you deny the existence of original sin now, even though elsewhere on this forum you argued for the existence of original sin? Or am I missing something?

You're missing a lot Tradidi.
I'm having a difficult time discussing this with you and I'm not sure why.

I have NEVER refuted Original Sin.
Instead of addressing my comments, you've been speaking past me and attacking my comments.
You're here to support the Catholic doctrine on infant baptism.
Consider it a normal conversation....I'm not here to attack you, nor should you be doing the attacking. Do not change my words or post that I changed my mind about something.
UNLESS you could show me where I 've done that.
I'm not in the habit of changing my mind --- as was Augustine.
When we want to know what he thought about something, we must always ask- at what point in his life. I wish you would confirm that he changed the reason babies were baptized,,,but you're allowed your own beliefs. This does not change history.

Please simply state your position on what happens to an unbaptized baby.

 

[Tradidi]

Come on...keep up.
Here is what I said: (post no. 34)

How does it backfire Tradidi?
To be saved a person MUST BELIEVE.

AFTER a person believes, he must be baptized.

IF he dies before baptism,,he will still be saved
because of the Baptism of Desire.

No one who believes in God will die lost.


Can a baby have the Baptism of Desire?
NO!

My point was that adults should be baptized and not infants.
And I've also stated why infants were baptized and why it changed with Augustine.

Please go back one more post:

If a person can neither be baptised nor born again unless and until he believes, then that person cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as per Jesus' own words. (John 3:5)

This is the argument that started this little mini-thread, and which you have so far refused to answer.

 

[GodsGrace]

Then why did you give this in reply to an argument against infant baptism, in a thread about infant baptism?

No, I don't think you're an idiot, but I do think you are not thinking through the implications of some of your statements.

Which ones exactly and why?

Also, a thread may be on infant baptism, but conversations can wander at times.
Nothing wrong with this as long as the thread is not derailed.

 

[GodsGrace]

Please go back one more post:

If a person can neither be baptised nor born again unless and until he believes, then that person cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as per Jesus' own words. (John 3:5)

This is the argument that started this little mini-thread, and which you have so far refused to answer.

You're forgetting about the age of accountability.

Please reply to that post.

 

[GodsGrace]

Please go back one more post:

If a person can neither be baptised nor born again unless and until he believes, then that person cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as per Jesus' own words. (John 3:5)

This is the argument that started this little mini-thread, and which you have so far refused to answer.

And for those reading along that may not know me...
I ALWAYS answer questions.

If you think I haven't answered one of yours,,,,please post the question again.

 

[Tradidi]

I'm more than positive that you've heard of the age of accountability.
A baby is NOT responsible for anyone's sins but his own.
A baby does not have sins. He is not able to sin.

As a baby grows older, he actually does sin.
He can steal at the age of 3 or so.
He can lie.
He can mistreat his friends and act in very unchristian-like ways.

But does God count this as sin?
NO.

Because, as you know, in order for an act to be a sin,,a person must be AWARE of the fact that he is sinning and he must knowingly commit that sin.

This does not happen until the age of accountability.
Do you know that most kids at the age of about 8 do not even believe they have ever sinned?
We must TEACH them what sin is,,,,and what confession is for.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."


1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.


1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.


Children do not know about the moral law until they are taught,
and so are not held responsible due to their ignorance.

The age of accountability determines when we start committing actual sin. It has nothing to do with original sin, and therefore it also has nothing to do with baptism.

 

[GodsGrace]

The age of accountability determines when we start committing actual sin. It has nothing to do with original sin, and therefore it also has nothing to do with baptism.

Last question and then I have to log off.

Do you believe Original Sin,,,meaning Adam's Sin...
is a sin that God imputes to us, and holds us personally responsible for that sin
or
Do you believe we suffer from the consequences of Original Sin but are not personally responsible for the sin of Adam?

I think a clear answer on this will clear up a lot.

Tomorrow....

 

[JLB]

thank you for that enlightenment so if i fail to practice then that means i have to be justified all over again saved? do you practice righteousness 24/7

No, you have a Savior who has sacrificed Himself for you.

He is also you High Priest, that you can go to, to confess your sin and be cleansed of all unrighteousness.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9



JLB

 

[WIP]

The Early Church Fathers told us that infant baptism was handed down from the Apostles. That is fact enough for me.

Can you provide a reference to this?

 

[jerry63935]

No, you have a Savior who has sacrificed Himself for you.

He is also you High Priest, that you can go to, to confess your sin and be cleansed of all unrighteousness.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9



JLB

so i dont lose my justification if i sin? because if i did then this would be void
1 John 2:1

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

 

[JLB]

so i dont lose my justification if i sin? because if i did then this would be void
1 John 2:1

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

Yes. A mighty Advocate with the Father, who loves us and gave Himself for us.

 

[Tradidi]

Can you provide a reference to this?

Origen

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Augustine

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

 

[Tradidi]

Last question and then I have to log off.

Do you believe Original Sin,,,meaning Adam's Sin...
is a sin that God imputes to us, and holds us personally responsible for that sin
or
Do you believe we suffer from the consequences of Original Sin but are not personally responsible for the sin of Adam?

I think a clear answer on this will clear up a lot.

I have already answered this question in the other thread (Is obeying the Lord and His Commandments required for salvation?):

Adam and Eve enjoyed Sanctifying Grace, Integrity, Immortality, Happiness and Knowledge.
After their fall, they lost, and we are born without, Sanctifying Grace and subject to Concupiscence, Death, Suffering and Ignorance.
Baptism restores Grace, but not the other gifts until the next life.

Please simply state your position on what happens to an unbaptized baby.

I also answered that question in the same thread:

To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church has never taught that unbaptised babies go to hell. What She has always taught is that they will not enjoy the beatific vision. The common opinion is that between heaven and hell is a state of natural happiness, which is usually called Limbo. But as far as I know this is only a common opinion, not a doctrine that has to be believed. The only doctrine that a Catholic has to believe is that those who are not baptised cannot go to heaven.

I don't know why you ask this again, but there you are, the answers are still the same.

 

[GodsGrace]

Origen

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Augustine

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Origen, 248 AD
Baptism of infants was already well under way by then.

That the baptism of infants came directly from the Apostles cannot be said.
Infants were being baptized in some parts of the world -- the west or the east.

As I've stated before, the Didache (approx 90 to 120 AD,,,most probably 90)
did NOT instruct infants to be baptized.
This is noted in Chapter 7:

1. Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," in running water;
2. But if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm.
3. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head "in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
4. And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before.

Later on infants began to be baptized because it was felt that it was not proper to deny them the blessings of God.

However, this was discussed and pondered much ....

This is from Tertullian who taught that only those that believed should be baptized:
155-220AD approx

It follows that defer-
ment of baptism is more profitable, in accordance with each
person's character and attitude, and even age: and especially so
as regards children. For what need is there, if there really is no
need, for even their sponsors to be brought into peril, seeing they
may possibly themselves fail of their promises by death, or be
deceived by the subsequent development of an evil disposition?
It is true our Lord says, Forbid them not to come to me.2 So let them
come, when they are growing up, when they are learning, when
they are being taught what they are coming to : let them be made
Christians when they have become competent to know Christ.
Why should innocent infancy come with haste to the remission
of sins? Shall we take less cautious action in this than we take in
worldly matters? Shall one who is not trusted with earthly pro-
perty be entrusted with heavenly? Let them first learn how to
ask for salvation, so that you may be seen to have given to one
that asketh.3

source: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_bapt/evans_bapt_text_trans.htm
page 39

The point I'm making and which you deny,,,is that it was not until Augustine's teachings that infants were baptized for fear of hell if they should die. This was never taught BEFORE him and is not taught even today.

The bible verses that allude to whole households being baptized CANNOT be used for support of infant baptism since Apostolic times since this is not clearly noted and which the Didache does not support.

The CC, however, does state that infants were baptized from Apostolic times,,,this cannot be determined by the N.T. writings however.



part 1 of 3