hislittleflower-throughconcrete:
I have to write a five page paper on infant baptism vs adult baptism. I’m a Protestant but half my essay has to be on the Catholic position. We must approach both sides the same way and I don’t want to portray your position with bias. Is there anything I should include/not include when talking about the Catholic belief in infant baptism? I really want to be respectful. Thanks
*rubs hands together* this is my favorite thing
I will begin by saying THANK YOU for asking, and for showing so much respect.
Baptism is a sacrament in the Catholic faith. A sacrament is an efficacious sign through which God bestows grace. Where protestant Christians believe that baptism is a symbolic gesture that displays the person’s faith, Catholics believe that grace is actually delivered through the sacrament. We believe that baptism is essential for salvation, and it therefore follows that we would want to baptize our children as soon as possible. That’s the gist. But now I’ll go on to explain the historical and scriptural evidence that supports it.
Each article I quote/link I recommend you read – they’re short and to the point tracts and articles. But a warning, the are written primarily for a Catholic audience and can come off high-and-mighty in tone.
“Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism … now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (source, text emphasis mine)
“More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).
Now [Protestants] say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) [Protestants] conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. [Protestants] refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, [Protestants] should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are we to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them?” (source, text emphasis mine)We believe that baptism is the new, redeemed circumcision:
“Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision. (source, text emphasis mine)
Other articles (please don’t merely read what I quoted above!)
- Infant Baptism (the complete article quoted above)
- Early Teachings on Infant Baptism (this is important because it shows that Christians believed in infant baptism long before 400 A.D. when the Bible was even compiled)
- Is Baptism Merely a Symbol? (a Catholic/Protestant dialogue)
Let me know what you think or if you have any more questions (about baptism or sacraments in general!)
Obscure Fandoms 