Jake Huether Posted July 21, 2003 Posted July 21, 2003 The answer is Yes, faith is necessary for Baptism. However, the question is, in the case of an infant, is the infant the one who is required to express faith. The answer to that question is NO. It is the God Parents and Parents who express faith in stead (or in place) of the infant. There are a couple things to note about Baptism, which I will briefly express - I will post more later from the Bible, but I'm short on time now... 1) Baptism and Circumcision must be studied in perallel, as St. Paul points out for us that Baptism is like circumcision. We would automatically note that infants were circumciesed at 8 days! 2) Jesus healed many many people at the request of OTHERS. The centurion for instance who asked for the healing of his slave. The slave wasn't required to show faith in order to be healed. Jesus healed him based on the faith of the centurion. Also, the little girl who died: Jesus brought her back to life because of the faith of her parents, not her! So we see that Jesus' Grace is envoked not necesarily through the faith of the one recieving the Grace, but also by the request of "sponsors"! More to come...
Jake Huether Posted July 21, 2003 Author Posted July 21, 2003 http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp Pretty complete...
Jake Huether Posted July 21, 2003 Author Posted July 21, 2003 another good one: http://pw1.netcom.com/~matt1618/infant.html
dUSt Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 Objection 1: Baptism can not save an infant because an infant can not accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. The Bible says that if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. - Romans 10:9 How can an infant do this?
Anna Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 That's why the Church permits parents and godparents to speak on the child's behalf, as well as promising to bring the child up in the Faith. What happens to unbaptized babies and little children who have not yet personally accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?????????? Catholic parents have the assurance that their babies will go to heaven.
dUSt Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 What happens to unbaptized babies and little children who have not yet personally accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? The same thing that happens to babies who are aborted. We must depend on the Grace of God musn't we?
Jake Huether Posted July 22, 2003 Author Posted July 22, 2003 Matthew 19:14, Jesus said, Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. So, we see that St. Paul's letter isn't refering to children, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them already. The only other stipulation (for children) is baptism. For whoever is born of water and spirit will be saved.
dUSt Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 Where's Bro Adam and Mulls? I'm tired of playing the role of the non-Catholic. haha
Brother Adam Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 Where have I been? I have a wedding in 10 days, a $1000 car repair bill and no money to pay it with cause it all went into the wedding so we might not have a honeymoon. 'nough said.
marielapin Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 Where have I been? I have a wedding in 10 days, a $1000 car repair bill and no money to pay it with cause it all went into the wedding so we might not have a honeymoon. 'nough said. I'm prayin' for ya.
littleflower+JMJ Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 Where have I been? I have a wedding in 10 days, a $1000 car repair bill and no money to pay it with cause it all went into the wedding so we might not have a honeymoon. 'nough said. it'll be okay bro. adam, you'lll see.....God has everything in control! at times like those one can only trust....because nothing is impossible for God! God bLess! +JMJ
mulls Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 Matthew 19:14, Jesus said, Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. So, we see that St. Paul's letter isn't refering to children, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them already. The only other stipulation (for children) is baptism. For whoever is born of water and spirit will be saved. this seems contradictory....if the kingdom of heaven already belongs to children, why would their be another stipulation to inherit said kingdom?
mulls Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 (edited) That's why the Church permits parents and godparents to speak on the child's behalf, as well as promising to bring the child up in the Faith. What happens to unbaptized babies and little children who have not yet personally accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?????????? Catholic parents have the assurance that their babies will go to heaven. so....infant baptism is kinda like an insurance policy for babies...they are assured to go to heaven from the time they are baptized, until they are able to make a rational decision in their life to follow Christ. Is this correct? Would you agree that infant baptism is meaningless if the person gets older and decides to reject Christ from their life? Edited July 22, 2003 by mulls
Jake Huether Posted July 22, 2003 Author Posted July 22, 2003 Because the kingdome of heaven belongs to them, they just need to be baptized to reap the benefits. It's like any gift, you have to unwrap it first. Baptism is the unwrapping!
mulls Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 Where's Bro Adam and Mulls? I'm tired of playing the role of the non-Catholic. haha lol, way to hold it down buddy
marielapin Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 From ScriptureCatholic.com: Infant Baptism Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults. Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature. Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception. Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism? Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism. Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God. Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism." Luke 18:15 - the people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This proves that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason. Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized." This is confirmed in the next verse. Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants. Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21. So baptism is for infants as well as adults. Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults. Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children. Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith. Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls. Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom. 1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults. Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism. Eph. 2:3- we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. 2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith. Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith. Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 6-10 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith. Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith. Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died. Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.
Jake Huether Posted July 22, 2003 Author Posted July 22, 2003 Mulls, Would you say then that circumcision was meaningless once the person was old enough to decide for themselves? It was God's command! Are you saying God's command was meaningless. Describe for me what the meaning of circumcision was, in your opinion? How does it differ from Baptism, in your opinion? Ahh! to answer your question though - more specifically: That's why the kingdom belongs to kids (if they are also baptized). Because since kids are pure at heart - unable to commit actual sin, then indeed until they are at the age of reason, there is nothing to keep them from God. Once they reach that age, however, you are right, they may reject that Grace that they recieved through Baptism. But for Catholics, that isn't the only Sacrament there is! Confirmation is the young adults chance to "confirm" their faith, and in essence renew their baptismal promises for themselves!
mulls Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 (edited) Jake, circumcision signified God's relationship with the Jews, and was mandated by God. Of course it wasn't meaningless. If God wanted every baby born into a Christian home to be baptized, I think he would have said so. Colossians 2:11-12 "In him (Christ) you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, have been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." This seems that a person's professed faith in Christ is required, not the faith of someone else on one's behalf. mariealpin, I really don't see how any of those explanations provides proof for infant baptism. Edited July 22, 2003 by mulls
hyperdulia again Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 mulls do you realize that infants were circumscised not adults (for the most part)? and he did say so. he says so through sacred tradition. he says so through catholic teaching to this very day. god didn't say all he had to say in the bible and he didn't stop talking/guiding whent the last book was written.
mulls Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 hype, yea I know infants were circumcised. that's why I followed it up with the baptism statement. God said he wanted infants to be circumcised, but believers to be baptized.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now