What Catholics Believe About Baptism

[libby]

If death is a consequence of sin, then how is it a sinless child dies?
Oh, and since "all have sinned", that would include children, wouldn't it? Or...are there exceptions?
Since a child cannot actually sin (a point we agree on), then we must be talking about something else.
Enlighten this poor, misguided Catholic.

 

[tiger78]

If death is a consequence of sin, then how is it a sinless child dies?
Oh, and since "all have sinned", that would include children, wouldn't it? Or...are there exceptions?
Since a child cannot actually sin (a point we agree on), then we must be talking about something else.
Enlighten this poor, misguided Catholic.

the phrase “all have sinned” in Romans 3:23 does not include children who have not yet come to the age of accountability.

In the context of this chapter, the word “all” refers to Jews and Gentiles, just as it does in verse nine. Of course, we realize that an infant is either Jew or Gentile, but, nonetheless, to infer that the “all” includes infants and, therefore, they are sinners is to read into the passage that which it does not teach. As well, such inference creates contradictions with other passages. For example, Ezekiel 28:15 teaches that we are perfect, or without sin, as infants; that iniquity is found in us at a later time in life. Ezekiel 18:20 teaches that we do not inherit sin. It is said of the “little ones” who left Egypt that they only (except Joshua and Caleb) would inherit Canaan, because they “in that day had no knowledge of good and evil” (Deuteronomy 1:39). So it is today. Without the mental capacity to know good and evil, one cannot sin. Infants clearly do not have the capability of knowing good and evil and, therefore, have no sin!

 

[tiger78]

Then don't. Refer to post 7 in this thread.

comments like that are really uncalled for. I am just giving my viewpoint and asking questions. the doesn't make it ok to be rude.

 

[libby]

the phrase “all have sinned” in Romans 3:23 does not include children who have not yet come to the age of accountability.

In the context of this chapter, the word “all” refers to Jews and Gentiles, just as it does in verse nine. Of course, we realize that an infant is either Jew or Gentile, but, nonetheless, to infer that the “all” includes infants and, therefore, they are sinners is to read into the passage that which it does not teach. As well, such inference creates contradictions with other passages. For example, Ezekiel 28:15 teaches that we are perfect, or without sin, as infants; that iniquity is found in us at a later time in life. Ezekiel 18:20 teaches that we do not inherit sin. It is said of the “little ones” who left Egypt that they only (except Joshua and Caleb) would inherit Canaan, because they “in that day had no knowledge of good and evil” (Deuteronomy 1:39). So it is today. Without the mental capacity to know good and evil, one cannot sin. Infants clearly do not have the capability of knowing good and evil and, therefore, have no sin!

Then why do infants die? Death is a consequence of sin.

 

[tiger78]

Then why do infants die? Death is a consequence of sin.[/QUOTE


Death entered the world because of sin. all humans die due to that first sin, not because we are born with a tainted spirit. We are all pure at birth, but we are also human and therefore subject to death. We die a physical death because of that first sin. We are subject to a spiritual death which is far greater when we reject God, infants and young children cannot suffer spiritual death because they do not have the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[libby]

Then why do infants die? Death is a consequence of sin.[/QUOTE


Death entered the world because of sin. all humans die due to that first sin, not because we are born with a tainted spirit. We are all pure at birth, but we are also human and therefore subject to death. We die a physical death because of that first sin. We are subject to a spiritual death which is far greater when we reject God, infants and young children cannot suffer spiritual death because they do not have the knowledge of good and evil.

So, then there is some consequence that even the innocent suffer because of that "original sin". In general, before they know right from wrong, would you say a child behaves virtuously; that is, selflessly? Or, would you say a child, before the age of accountability, behaves in what might be called, a selfish manner?

 

[tiger78]

So, then there is some consequence that even the innocent suffer because of that "original sin". In general, before they know right from wrong, would you say a child behaves virtuously; that is, selflessly? Or, would you say a child, before the age of accountability, behaves in what might be called, a selfish manner?

Before a child knows right from wrong they behave innocently.

 

[ItalianScallion]

If death is a consequence of sin, then how is it a sinless child dies?
Oh, and since "all have sinned", that would include children, wouldn't it? Or...are there exceptions?
Since a child cannot actually sin (a point we agree on), then we must be talking about something else.
Enlighten this poor, misguided Catholic.

Context darling; Context...If we read it literally and ALL have sinned, then Jesus would have to be included. (And we know that ain't right). "All" doesn't always mean everyone...

Death entered the world because of sin. all humans die due to that first sin, not because we are born with a tainted spirit. We are all pure at birth, but we are also human and therefore subject to death. We die a physical death because of that first sin. We are subject to a spiritual death which is far greater when we reject God, infants and young children cannot suffer spiritual death because they do not have the knowledge of good and evil.

Some good words here Tiger!

 

[libby]

Before a child knows right from wrong they behave innocently.

So...you can't answer my question? The human person is a fallen being, and he behaves selfishly, whether you want to admit it or not.
That is not the same as being accountable. A behavior can be an objective wrong, without any judgement being on the one who commited the error. A mentally impaired person might lash out at someone for whatever reason, but that doesn't make them accountable for assault.
Most agree that the age of accountability is about 7y/o. So, if a 6 y/o is beating up another 6 y/o, would you say he is behaving innocently? No, I think not. He is not responsible in God's judgement for that error, but the behavior is far from innocent. In fact, children under the age of reason are often held accountable by parents, teachers and day care workers by time outs, corporeal punishment, loss of privileges, etc.
So, that tendency toward sin is a result of fallen nature, a nature tainted by...sin! Whether you want to call it a "sin nature", or "original sin" makes no difference to me, but it is there and it is the result of the fall.

 

[tiger78]

So...you can't answer my question? The human person is a fallen being, and he behaves selfishly, whether you want to admit it or not.
That is not the same as being accountable. A behavior can be an objective wrong, without any judgement being on the one who commited the error. A mentally impaired person might lash out at someone for whatever reason, but that doesn't make them accountable for assault.
Most agree that the age of accountability is about 7y/o. So, if a 6 y/o is beating up another 6 y/o, would you say he is behaving innocently? No, I think not. He is not responsible in God's judgement for that error, but the behavior is far from innocent. In fact, children under the age of reason are often held accountable by parents, teachers and day care workers by time outs, corporeal punishment, loss of privileges, etc.
So, that tendency toward sin is a result of fallen nature, a nature tainted by...sin! Whether you want to call it a "sin nature", or "original sin" makes no difference to me, but it is there and it is the result of the fall.

I did answer your question. You may call their behavior selfish and to a person who knows the difference between selfish and nonselfish behavior I suppose it could be seen as children being selfish. However, they are innocent because they do not know the difference.
I do not believe the age of accountability is 6-7, I have always heard an age closer to 12 or so, but IMO that varies from individual to individual.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you and others are including infants and children in the "unsaved" category. I lost a baby and I am sure I will see my child in Heaven and it really is hurtful when people misconstrue the Word of God to condemn the innocent.

 

[libby]

I did answer your question. You may call their behavior selfish and to a person who knows the difference between selfish and nonselfish behavior I suppose it could be seen as children being selfish. However, they are innocent because they do not know the difference.
I do not believe the age of accountability is 6-7, I have always heard an age closer to 12 or so, but IMO that varies from individual to individual.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you and others are including infants and children in the "unsaved" category. I lost a baby and I am sure I will see my child in Heaven and it really is hurtful when people misconstrue the Word of God to condemn the innocent.

Nope, I do not say that children are unsaved, and neither does the RCC; we trust in God's Mercy. We also believe in what we call "baptism by desire", and/or "baptism by blood". It's not doctrinal, but, in short, it means that if the intention to baptise was there, either by the parents, or perhaps by the individual himself had he lived, then that infant would be saved.

You may call their behavior selfish and to a person who knows the difference between selfish and nonselfish behavior I suppose it could be seen as children being selfish

As I said, it is selfish objectively speaking. Do you understand what that means? (I'm not trying to sound condescneding here, although I'm sure it's coming across that way). I did say exactly what you did, that to someonw who knows, then the behavior is selfish. Now, we go back to the topic at hand, which is original sin; do we, or do we not, have original sin affecting us? The answer is yes.
Now that then brings us to the discussion of baptism, it's effect and it's necessity.
Open Pandora's box...

 

[tiger78]

Nope, I do not say that children are unsaved, and neither does the RCC; we trust in God's Mercy. We also believe in what we call "baptism by desire", and/or "baptism by blood". It's not doctrinal, but, in short, it means that if the intention to baptise was there, either by the parents, or perhaps by the individual himself had he lived, then that infant would be saved.

As I said, it is selfish objectively speaking. Do you understand what that means? (I'm not trying to sound condescneding here, although I'm sure it's coming across that way). I did say exactly what you did, that to someonw who knows, then the behavior is selfish. Now, we go back to the topic at hand, which is original sin; do we, or do we not, have original sin affecting us? The answer is yes.
Now that then brings us to the discussion of baptism, it's effect and it's necessity.
Open Pandora's box...

Original sin as you call it, affects us IMO only by the fact that we all die a physical death. I am not held responsible for the transgression of any other person.

Baptism...The Bible clearly teaches that first one must hear the gospel of salvation, then they MUST Believe what they have heard, and then in Obedience of Faith they MUST be baptized. This clearly shows that one must be able to be taught and understand and have their own belief and obedience. I cannot make the decision for someone else....

I am going to anticipate a potential argument for baptizing infants...the passages that include the "households".....

Millions of people around the world live in households where there are no infants present. These passages are often used in a vain attempt to justify the unbiblical practice of infant baptism. But if one actually reads the passage carefully, one will see that this passage actually tells us no infants were present!


Acts 16:32-34
Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family.



What this passage says regarding infant baptism:

1.) Paul and Silas spoke the Word of the Lord to all those in the jailer’s household.

2.) All members of the jailer’s family were baptized

3.) The whole family of the jailer came to BELIEVE in God.



Conclusion: Since every member of the jailer’s family came to BELIEVE (after having heard the Word preached to them) there could not possibly have been even a single infant present because infants cannot BELIEVE in God. Infants are not capable of understanding the “Word of the Lord”, nor can infants be described as “having come to believe in God.” Therefore, everyone in the household of the jailer was old enough that they could hear and understand the gospel being taught to them, and come to a personal faith in Christ. Only when an individual is old enough to believe the gospel do they become a valid candidate for baptism.

 

[libby]

Original sin as you call it, affects us IMO only by the fact that we all die a physical death. I am not held responsible for the transgression of any other person.

Baptism...The Bible clearly teaches that first one must hear the gospel of salvation, then they MUST Believe what they have heard, and then in Obedience of Faith they MUST be baptized. This clearly shows that one must be able to be taught and understand and have their own belief and obedience. I cannot make the decision for someone else....

I am going to anticipate a potential argument for baptizing infants...the passages that include the "households".....

Millions of people around the world live in households where there are no infants present. These passages are often used in a vain attempt to justify the unbiblical practice of infant baptism. But if one actually reads the passage carefully, one will see that this passage actually tells us no infants were present!


Acts 16:32-34
Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family.



What this passage says regarding infant baptism:

1.) Paul and Silas spoke the Word of the Lord to all those in the jailer’s household.

2.) All members of the jailer’s family were baptized

3.) The whole family of the jailer came to BELIEVE in God.



Conclusion: Since every member of the jailer’s family came to BELIEVE (after having heard the Word preached to them) there could not possibly have been even a single infant present because infants cannot BELIEVE in God. Infants are not capable of understanding the “Word of the Lord”, nor can infants be described as “having come to believe in God.” Therefore, everyone in the household of the jailer was old enough that they could hear and understand the gospel being taught to them, and come to a personal faith in Christ. Only when an individual is old enough to believe the gospel do they become a valid candidate for baptism.

So we return to the definition of "all". Earlier in one of the myriad threads here, you, or another Bible Christian, admitted that "all" doesn't necessarily mean "all". I'm thinking it was you because you were saying that "all" cannot include infants when the Scriptures tell us that "all" have sinned. So, for the love of Pete, are infants an exception in "all have sinned", but they are not an exception to the "all believed".
Here we go again!!

 

[tiger78]

So we return to the definition of "all". Earlier in one of the myriad threads here, you, or another Bible Christian, admitted that "all" doesn't necessarily mean "all". I'm thinking it was you because you were saying that "all" cannot include infants when the Scriptures tell us that "all" have sinned. So, for the love of Pete, are infants an exception in "all have sinned", but they are not an exception to the "all believed".
Here we go again!!

First, thank you for referring to me as a Bible Christian.

I do not understand your last statement....What I tried to convey above is that the scriptures show us that infants are WITHOUT SIN (therefore, not included in the "all have sinned") and they are not included in the "all believed" category because infants CANNOT believe. From the scripture I referenced above, you can conclude that since BELIEF is the reason (for lack of a better word) that one obtains a desire or realization of their NEED for salvation that all those in the "household" had to be old enough to understand and believe.
I do not understand the desire to include infants and young children in the condemned sinner category.

 

[libby]

First, thank you for referring to me as a Bible Christian.

I do not understand your last statement....What I tried to convey above is that the scriptures show us that infants are WITHOUT SIN (therefore, not included in the "all have sinned") and they are not included in the "all believed" category because infants CANNOT believe. From the scripture I referenced above, you can conclude that since BELIEF is the reason (for lack of a better word) that one obtains a desire or realization of their NEED for salvation that all those in the "household" had to be old enough to understand and believe.
I do not understand the desire to include infants and young children in the condemned sinner category.

They are not in any "condemned sinner" category; I condemn no one, and that includes infants.
Genesis 17:14 tells us that infants are to be circumcised as a token of the convenant (although the infants are too young to understand or accept the convenant) because they are part of the people of God. It is an outward sign of an inward dispostion. God says, "the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh...that soul shall be cut off from his people, he has broken the covenant."
Now the RCC teaches, and I believe, that the baptism of an infant is amoung the NT signs of the New Covenant. We dedicate our children to God, and we make that outward sign of our obedience to Him. When a child is old enough to make his own decision, we have the Sacrament of Confirmation.

 

[tiger78]

They are not in any "condemned sinner" category; I condemn no one, and that includes infants.
Genesis 17:14 tells us that infants are to be circumcised as a token of the convenant (although the infants are too young to understand or accept the convenant) because they are part of the people of God. It is an outward sign of an inward dispostion. God says, "the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh...that soul shall be cut off from his people, he has broken the covenant."
Now the RCC teaches, and I believe, that the baptism of an infant is amoung the NT signs of the New Covenant. We dedicate our children to God, and we make that outward sign of our obedience to Him. When a child is old enough to make his own decision, we have the Sacrament of Confirmation.

You may not condemn them but from the viewpoint that I am hearing, it seems that your doctrine leaves at least the possibility that infants may be condemned if they are not "baptized".
The example from the OT about circumcision does not translate IMO to this subject matter. Only males can be circumcised, so then what about females?
In Galatians, Paul opposed Peter on the issue of circumcision and the new covenant.

are saying that "infant baptism" is a promise that the parents will raise their child in the Lord and it is not a required part of salvation?

 

[ItalianScallion]

I do not believe the age of accountability is 6-7, I have always heard an age closer to 12 or so, but IMO that varies from individual to individual.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you and others are including infants and children in the "unsaved" category. I lost a baby and I am sure I will see my child in Heaven and it really is hurtful when people misconstrue the Word of God to condemn the innocent.

I'm very sorry for your loss, tiger, but you can be assured that the child is in Heaven with God.

The "age of accountability" can be anywhere from 4 or 5 years to as much as 20 years. It depends on what amount of truth the person has been exposed to and their ability to understand it. Lots of factors need to be taken into account, so there isn't a set age for it.

You also have to remember what you're dealing with here: Folks who have been indoctrinated to believe RCC doctrine over God's Word. That's a "nut that only God can crack".

Nope, I do not say that children are unsaved, and neither does the RCC; we trust in God's Mercy.

Which means the childs salvation depends on the parents intent? Not a chance, Libby. God's mercy has nothing to do with the childs parents or their intentions for their child.

We also believe in what we call "baptism by desire", and/or "baptism by blood". It's not doctrinal, but, in short, it means that if the intention to baptise was there, either by the parents, or perhaps by the individual himself had he lived, then that infant would be saved.

God doesn't save anyone because of their parents intent to baptize. That's as ludicrous as holy Mormon underwear...

 

[Marie]

Baptism is the beginning of justification. Justification is necessary due to original sin. Btw, the sacrament of confirmation is when Catholics formally proclaim belief and renew baptismal vows.

So you believe in decisional regeneration, that something man desides can save us? Compound that, even worse a parent can make a decision for a childs salvation?

So if baptism is purely symbolic (which it is) that dosent add up. How can a child, through no conciousness of his own, qualify for Gods plan of salvation. If he isnt able to repent and put his faith and trust in Christ alone, he cant be deemed justified because he's not born again.

 

[Zguy28]

So you believe in decisional regeneration, that something man desides can save us? Compound that, even worse a parent can make a decision for a childs salvation?

So if baptism is purely symbolic (which it is) that dosent add up. How can a child, through no conciousness of his own, qualify for Gods plan of salvation. If he isnt able to repent and put his faith and trust in Christ alone, he cant be deemed justified because he's not born again.

I hate to say this, but you make it seem as if "to repent and put his faith and trust in Christ alone" is what decides if a person is saved. In other words, you sound like you are preaching "decisional regeneration" also.

The bible says all people have sinned. Period. That includes children, whether we like it or not. My 7 year old knows what sin is and when she's missed the mark.

Perhaps the judgment whether or not a person or child is innocent or guilty before God is not based on our concept of moral maturity or age, but rather on God's exhaustive foreknowledge?

 

[Marie]

Thanks for the chance to clarify.

I hate to say this, but you make it seem as if "to repent and put his faith and trust in Christ alone" is what decides if a person is saved. In other words, you sound like you are preaching "decisional regeneration" also.

The bible says all people have sinned. Period. That includes children, whether we like it or not. My 7 year old knows what sin is and when she's missed the mark.

Perhaps the judgment whether or not a person or child is innocent or guilty before God is not based on our concept of moral maturity or age, but rather on God's exhaustive foreknowledge?

If I asked my dad for twenty bucks its not my asking that determines if I get it, He has the decision authority and its only through His kindness and mercy if I do receive it. But If I want it, I still need to request it.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Man has a role to play in the process. <o></o>
<o></o>
The Holy Spirit enables him to respond. It’s all of God.<o></o>
<o></o>
Mans part in salvation is turning to God in repentance and faith, as they are the two wings that fly you to the Savior.<o></o>
<o></o>
I dont believe God makes decessions based on foreknowledge. That dosent sound all powerfull, in fact it sounds as if its then based on how man responds, rather than Gods decretive will.