Posted on 10/01/2009 6:29:50 AM PDT by NYer
Q: Our new next-door neighbors have a 14-month-old daughter. They’re Catholics, but I just found out that they still haven’t had their daughter baptized yet! When our own children were born over 30 years ago, we had them baptized when they were just a couple of weeks old. Aren’t you required to have your children baptized quickly like that any more? –Frances
A: The Church’s teaching on the necessity of baptism for salvation has not changed. Christ Himself, after His Resurrection, couldn’t have spoken more clearly about the need for baptism, when He commanded the Apostles to go forth and baptize all nations (Matt. 28: 19-20). As the Catechism teaches, “through baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God” (CCC 1213 ). It is only logical that Catholic parents should want to have their newborn children baptized as soon as possible, to free them from original sin and make them members of the Church.
As we have seen in this space so many times before, canon law follows theology. So it isn’t at all surprising to find that canon 867.1 states that parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptized within the first few weeks after birth. And the very next paragraph, canon 867.2 , adds that if the child is in danger of death, he is to be baptized immediately.
Thus it should be clear that waiting for months, or even years, to have one’s child baptized is not only not in keeping with the Church’s theological teaching, it is also contrary to canon law. It is difficult to imagine a legitimate reason why Catholic parents, who truly believe in basic tenets of our faith like original sin and God’s grace, would fail to arrange for their children to be baptized as soon as possible.
Ironically, it may be that the wonderful medical advances of the last several decades have inadvertently led many Catholic parents to lose the traditional sense of urgency about having their newborn children baptized. For centuries, the Church’s teaching about the importance of baptism for salvation dovetailed neatly with the fear of many parents that their newborn might not live very long, and so both supernatural and natural reasons tended to push parents to have their children baptized as quickly as they could. If you have ever read the biography of a medieval saint, or if done genealogical research on your own family members in centuries past, you might very well have come across an instance where someone was baptized the day after his birth, or even sooner. In fact, it isn’t necessary to dig so far back in the historical past to find examples of this: in 1927, Pope Benedict XVI himself was baptized the same day that he was born.
This practice was, of course, logically consistent with Catholic doctrine. Given the extraordinarily high rates of infant mortality in generations past, and the fear that an infant might die before original sin had been wiped from his soul, what Catholic parent wouldn’t rush a newborn child to the parish church for baptism as soon as possible?
While there still is always some risk that a child may not survive, nowadays the fear that a newborn infant might not make it is hardly so great as before, especially here in the US. At the same time, baptisms have become big family/social events, when relatives fly into town and there is often a big family get-together after the ceremony. Of course there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this; in fact, we do well to maintain our awareness of the importance of such an event by celebrating the occasion. But unfortunately, the desire to have all the family present at a child’s baptism can naturally lead to postponing the sacrament until everyone is able to make it. While parents are waiting for this or that relative to have a free weekend to travel, their new baby remains in original sin.
There are other factors which now sometimes lead parents to put off having their new child baptized. As we saw back in the June 21, 2007 column , it is standard practice these days in the US for parishes to require parents to attend an evening class (or series of classes) before their child is baptized. This is designed to ensure that the parents truly intend to raise their child in the Catholic faith—an intention that must be present if the priest is to agree to perform the baptism (c. 868.1 n. 2 ). Occasionally I have heard parents complain that they can’t have their new baby baptized until they attend this class, and that in their parish, the class is held only once a month. But in every single case, I have found that these complaining parents had made no effort whatsoever to inquire about the requirements for their infant’s baptism ahead of time. Since parents obviously are aware for months in advance that they will be having a baby, it is difficult to understand their failure to do this. Why not arrange to attend the class a month or two before the child’s expected birth-date, so that it will be possible to have the baptism soon afterwards?
Many parishes do an excellent job of publicizing the need for all parents to attend the baptism class, and class dates are announced well in advance. Others could probably do a better job of instructing their parishioners about the obligation of all parents to have their children baptized soon after birth. I have personally seen a disturbing pattern in many Catholic Hispanic communities, where children are routinely baptized when they are apparently two or three years old, if not older! If their parents had fallen away from the faith, and just recently returned to the Church, this of course would be an entirely understandable explanation for the delay. But if these families are regularly practicing Catholics, it appears that the pastor and parish catechists would do well to remind parents more forcefully and more often that by delaying their child’s baptism, they are leaving that child in original sin. If, God forbid, tragedy strikes and such a child suddenly dies, he leaves this world without the sacramental graces gained from baptism—and by his parents’ choice.
Another, more abstract factor that may cause some new parents to wrongly conclude that there is no need to rush to baptize their child, is the fallout from the fairly recent theological statement from the Vatican concerning Limbo . In 2007, many media outlets wrongly declared that Pope Benedict XVI had “done away with Limbo.” Even the most sincere journalist could perhaps be forgiven for being confused about what the statement actually meant! In its 2000-year existence, the Catholic Church has never made a definitive, authoritative statement explaining exactly what happens to infants who died before being baptized. Since they themselves are completely innocent, it seems absurd to conclude that God damns them to hell; although no less a theologian than St. Augustine really did reach this conclusion 1600 years ago, it was, understandably, not a position subsequently embraced officially by the entire Church. At the same time, the Church teaches that baptism is necessary to enter Heaven, since we must first be wiped clean of original sin and made children of God before we can be with Him there. It is thus a quandary with which theologians long have had to grapple, and the conclusion that there must be some third place (dubbed “Limbo”) was reached as a result. In Limbo, they said, the souls of unbaptized children enjoy some degree of happiness, but they are deprived of the Beatific Vision of God because they are still in original sin. This is not a teaching that can be found anywhere in revelation; rather, it is a logical conclusion of the Church’s teaching on baptism.
In the mid-2000’s, the International Theological Commission (ITC)—a team of theologians chosen from all over the world by the Pope to serve together as a joint committee of experts—was tasked with studying the issue of what happens to infants who die without the grace of baptism. The issue was not merely a theoretical, academic one: questions have been raised repeatedly about the fate of those millions upon millions of children who are killed by abortion. And what about those embryos which are created through in-vitro fertilization, and later discarded in the lab as superfluous? The Church needed to examine the issue more closely.
In their report—which was approved by the Pope—the ITC provided no magic answer to this difficult theological question. It reiterated traditional Catholic teaching when it asserted that “the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism is proclaimed and professed as integral to the Christian faith understanding” (66 ), and it did a beautiful job of tracing the historical development of the belief in Limbo, the existence of which “is not a dogmatic definition” (38 ). The ITC emphasized that there is no need for such a place necessarily to exist at all, since “God can therefore give the grace of Baptism without the sacrament being conferred” (82 ) if He so wishes. In other words, God is not bound by the sacraments; He can, if He so wishes, freely allow the soul of an unbaptized infant into His presence in Heaven. Thus the ITC stressed the need for hope and trust in the mercy of God, since “the point of departure for considering the destiny of these children should be the salvific will of God” (41 ).
This report could too easily be misinterpreted as saying that there is no need to baptize our children, since God will allow them into Heaven anyway. But the report definitely does not exonerate parents whose children die without baptism, when the parents have not made an effort to have the baby baptized promptly. Thus it cannot be used as an excuse for failing to have a newborn infant baptized as quickly as the parents reasonably can.
True, there are tragic situations where a newborn dies unexpectedly in the first few hours or days of his birth; if the parents had been planning to have him baptized soon, it is certainly difficult to fault them for not being fast enough! But it is a very different matter when a child of several months, or even years, dies without having been baptized, solely through the negligence of his parents. New parents need to keep in mind—and to be reminded—of the incredible spiritual responsibility they bear toward their newborn children, who must depend on their parents to ensure that they are relieved of the burden of original sin so that they may someday see God face to face.
Oh I don't know, maybe the FACT that He told the Disciples to baptize people.
| ΙΑΚΟΒΟΥ — James 2:24 | |
| ορατε οτι | you see |
| εχ εργων | by works |
| δοκαιουται ανθρωπος | is man justified |
| και ουκ | and not |
| εκ πιστεως μονον. | by faith alone. |
First, I disagree that Jesus speaks of being born of the flesh as baptism.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I didn't say that Jesus likened being born of the flesh with baptism. I said the text says when Jesus told Nicodemus he must be born again, Nicodemus was confused and asked how he could go back into his mother's womb and be born again. Ol' Nic was a Pharisee and they were all about the law and their pride in being blameless before men. They thought they were the best Jews there could be and they would go to heaven because of their goodness.
Jesus knew what was in his heart and just what he needed to hear. He threw him a curve ball. Guess what, you won't see the kingdom of God unless you are born again. What? He was probably thinking is this guy all here? So he asked Jesus just how he was supposed to go about getting back into that womb. Jesus never mentioned the word baptism. Some people see "water" and automatically think baptism, but in context, Jesus is not even speaking about it. He says you are born of the flesh (born of water) and you must be born again (from above), born of the spirit, to see heaven.
The subsequent verses then explain the glorious gospel including verse 16, "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.".
“Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and Calvinists all baptize infants — why don’t you take it up with them.”
If any of them are on this thread and want to take it up with me, fine!
I didn’t (and haven’t) posted a thread attacking Catholics. I merely responded to a thread posted on a doctrinal issue. And since I’m a Baptist, it isn’t TOO surprising where I landed...
Do you also subscribe to the OLD TESTAMENT belief in stoning blasphemers, adulterers?
Old Testament is one thing; I follow Jesus - when was HE baptized?
Oh yeah - not at 8 days.
If I remember my Bible history (IIRMBH) - at that point - Jesus was 30!!! It was roughly 3 years after that He was crucified.
So, if it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me. I’ll stand in the gap.
No
with pool balls, though, maybe ...
Somebody suggested IHS got Baptized just as soon as he could.
I DO think that looking carefully at whatever differences material to the conversation there might be between circumcision and baptism would be helpful. The making of analogies to OT practices is not dispositively invalidated by mentioning that some other OT practices are no longer the thing to do.
What a beautiful! Thank you for sharing that.
May I ask a favor? My stepfather was born into a Lutheran family that decided to leave it up to him to decide which church he would join. This is such a preposterous notion, so much more common today than ever. They never introduced him to any faith but raised him with respect for the ten commandments. When he married my Catholic mother, he had to promise to raise me in the Catholic faith. He did not fail! From time to time, he would also attend Mass with us. At one of his work assignments, he met a man he admired who also happened to be a Baptist minister. He contemplated becoming a Baptist but realized that such a decision was based solely on his admiration for this one man. Now in his late 70's, he is still unbaptized. It is my constant prayer that he will have a conversion of heart and be baptized before he dies. Would you please remember him in your prayers? I would be most appreciative.
The very first time the opportunity presented itself.
“Where does the Bible say this?”
There are several passages, which taken together, will give a clear understanding of the nature of the resurrections of the dead and who will be judged. I’ll list a few of the most important ones, but I’m sure I will leave some out since it is a very important subject.
First, we have the description of the first resurrection and second resurrections detailed in Revelation 20, after Christ’s second coming and the defeat of the dragon (aka the Beast):
The first resurrection:
“4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.”
The second resurrection (a few verses later in the same chapter) is a parallel to the parable of the sheep and goats you posted:
“11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
So we can see plainly from these verses, that whoever partakes in the first resurrection cannot be under the judgement that takes place at the second resurrection (the 2nd death has no power over them), in fact they will be sitting in judgment besides Christ (they had been given authority to judge). These verses make clear that those who are martyrs for their testimony are part of this first resurrection. But are they the only ones?
Another view of the first resurrection occurs in 1 Thessalonians (although some mistakenly take this as evidence for a “rapture”, I think this must be the same event depicted in Revelation 20):
“13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.”
So these verses show that at Jesus’ return, he will bring those people with him that have “fallen asleep in him”. They will “rise first”, and afterwards, the rest of the living believers will be caught up to meet Jesus at his return. This can’t refer only to the martyrs, since the verse is addressed to living believers (they couldn’t have been martyred if they were reading it).
Paul talks about the 1st resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, when he is rebuking the teachings of some who preached there would be no resurrection:
“12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.”
We see in this chapter that this resurrection occurs “at his coming” (the 2nd coming). Paul says Christ is the “firstfruits of them that slept”, confirming the symbolic language that those “asleep in him” from 1 Thesalonians refer to the dead being resurrected.
So taken altogether, these verses give a good picture of the coming resurrections and judgment. First, they will occur at Christ’s return (the dead, be they believer or non-believer - with a few exceptions, are said to be “asleep” until then, not in heaven). Second, those believers who have died will be resurrected first, before all non-believers, and along with those still living, will meet Christ at his coming. Third, these who are saved will not be judged in the white throne judgment that takes place after the second resurrection, and there is no danger of them being thrown in the lake of fire (the 2nd death).
Please refer to my post #209 to wagglebee, I think I have just laid out what I believe pretty on these matters pretty clearly there.
Principle #2: The Contextual Principle
D.A. Carson has been quoted as saying, "A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text." By "proof text," of course, Carson means the abuse of a single verse or phrase taken out of context to "prove" a particular view. The word "text" is derived from the Latin word, which means to “weave.” The context is that which accompanies the text. The Word of God is a perfect unit. The scriptures cannot be broken; they all hang together, a perfect unity. We must look and consider the verses immediately before, after, and around the passage. We must consider the book of the Bible and the section of the Bible in which the passage occurs. The Bible must be interpreted within the framework of the Bible.
Principle #3: The Scripture Interprets Scripture Principle
We may rest assured that God did not reveal an important doctrine in a single, ambiguous passage. All essential doctrines are fully and clearly explained - either in the immediate context, or somewhere else in the Bible. This principle is best illustrated by what is known as "topical Bible study." There are two essential 'rules' for applying this principle: 1) The context of the two passages must be the same; and 2) The plain passage must be used to guide our interpretation of a less clear passage - not the other way around!
Principle #7: The Harmony of Scripture Principle
No part of the Bible may be interpreted so as to contradict another part of the Bible. The Christian presupposes the inerrancy and harmony of Scripture as a necessary result of a perfect Creator God revealing Himself perfectly to Mankind. Proper application of hermeneutical principles will resolve apparent conflicts. The key here, of course, is the word "proper," for exegetical fallacies can easily result from a zealous but ill-informed attempt to "save" Scripture from an apparent contradiction.
This verse in James is always cited, but usually not in the context that was meant which was true faith produces good works and without works, faith is unproductive (dead). In the eyes of man it does no good to say you have faith, that you are a believer, if your actions, or way of life, does not back up that professed faith. Abraham demonstrated his faith when he was willing to offer the child of promise (Isaac) on the altar. He was accounted righteous by God because of faith.
Belief vs Baptism in salvation:
When I was 18 and went off to college, I knew nothing about denominations, since I came from a military chapel background - I had been baptized by an American Baptist, but the last pastor was Lutheran...
I don’t remember which church I went to, but I just picked it out of the phone book. After a few weeks, I found they thought anyone who ever did any work on Sunday was bound for hell. Along with a host of other damning failures - and there seemed to be a LOT that outweighed the blood of Christ - they also claimed that water baptism was required for salvation.
They cited Mark 16: “And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
When I went to a local Baptist preacher and asked him, he said the term salvation (or saved), in scripture, refers to justification or sanctification.
Both are part of being saved, and the new birth doesn’t allow one to pick and choose - if you are justified, you start sanctification, and all being sanctified have first been justified.
Baptism is not a requirement for justification, nor do we need to be rejustified every time we sin. Sanctification involves separation from sin, and baptism IS a critical part of that process.
Of course, if you are the thief on the cross and don’t have a chance to be baptized because you are about to die, you justification is still complete, and the sanctification process quickly reaches its end.
When approached from this perspective, a great many puzzling passages in scripture make sense. Justification is spoken of in the past tense, and as fully complete, because it is. Sanctification is an ongoing process, which ends at death, since we then no longer have the body for the Spirit to war against (Romans 7 & 8).
Being saved can mean either justification or both justification & sanctification combined. Mark 16 makes sense. Acts 2 makes sense. Romans makes sense.
“To me this argument more than most demonstrates the futility of arguing from Scripture.”
Arguing from scripture (which is “God-breathed”) isn’t futile. Arguing from anything else - men’s traditions, doctrinal statements, experience - is. A failure to understand scripture is a fault of men, not scripture.
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;
the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;
the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;
the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
Psalms 19
Oh, and Mad Dawg - see you got your tag line back. It disappeared for a few days...
But how does this apply to those who are still alive at the time of the Second Coming?
Yes, I agree that carry the analysis to the point of making a Boolean grid would be a bit ridiculous, I only meant to point out that the verse doesn’t say you aren’t saved if you aren’t baptized, but it does say you aren’t saved if you don’t believe. I don’t think that means there is no purpose to baptism, but I think that it suggests that belief is primary, and that belief should be accompanied by baptism.
Excellent post! I believe most of those principles can be found in Augustine:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.toc.html
“second... i know absolutely nothing of how you go about the baptism of fire. is that also something you do in infancy?”
I think (but am not completely certain on this point), that the baptism of fire refers to the chastening (during our earthly lives) that God brings upon those believers who, though faithful, continue to sin according to their old lives, which should be passing away. Some who are saved may not require this, but others apparently do.
“Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,—to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.” - Augustine
That was before the Council of Trent, so he was allowed to teach interpretation of scripture!
You bet! I am doing the 6:00 to 7:00 AM “patrol” in front of Panned Parenthood tomorrow, and my partner and I will be praying a Rosary. I’ll mention your stepfather.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.