Yesterday was the anniversary of the Diet of Worms. I thought about what if I became a Catholic priest. I did have thoughts of entering the Roman Catholic priesthood around 7-9 years old. At some point, I thought of becoming a priest to get the answers. Another issue I want to tackle is infant baptism. I heard the old saying that goes, “From womb to tomb, you still pay.” Infant baptism is just the beginning of the dirty business. I even thought that if ever I had become a priest before, I might also have been in trouble for baptizing an infant without receiving a stipulation. Sure, some Protestant groups practice infant baptism (such as the Presbyterians). I would like to write about infant baptism at this point.
The Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation starts with infant baptism. Catholic Answers defines infant baptism as follows:
Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth (CCC 1250).
The very idea of being reborn through infant baptism is nowhere in the Scriptures. The golden calf of the Reformation was infant baptism. People baptized as infants thought they were right with God because they were baptized as infants. Many Catholics today are still determined because they were baptized as Catholics–it’s a shame if they don’t die Catholic. However, even the word baptize can’t fit in. Baptism means immersion. The only time a person might be exempt is in practical cases. Otherwise, if it can be done by immersion, please do so by immersion.
The justification for Catholic infant baptism tends to be taken from Luke 18:15-17. Sure, there’s the dedication of infants in Baptist and Protestant churches. Back in Cebu Bible Baptist Church, there were infants dedicated after the end of the morning service or the evening service. Luke 18:15-17 was read. However, it never justifies the doctrine of Catholic infant baptism. Children are to be dedicated to God. In the Old Testament, we have infants dedicated by the priest, who by the way, is from the lineage of Aaron. Only the sons of Aaron could serve as priests and they weren’t celibate either.
Acts 2:38 is often used as the “proof text” of why infants must be baptized. I remember Catholic apologists citing the verse. However, if we take a look at more verses, this is what we get. I’ll quote from the GNT which is a Catholic-approved translation. Just remember that all Martin Luther had during the Reformation was a Catholic Bible! Even Catholics weren’t allowed to have a copy of their very own translation at that time!
38 Peter said to them, “Each one of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven; and you will receive God’s gift, the Holy Spirit. 39 For God’s promise was made to you and your children, and to all who are far away—all whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 Peter made his appeal to them and with many other words he urged them, saying, “Save yourselves from the punishment coming on this wicked people!” 41 Many of them believed his message and were baptized, and about three thousand people were added to the group that day.
The New RSV (Catholic edition) also says this:
38 Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ 40 And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’ 41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added.
The formula has always been that people first believed before they were baptized! One might say that Acts 16 can justify it. Okay, but nothing in there even implies that there were infants. Not every household has infants. Sure, children who are saved follow in the waters of baptism. The case is very different with infants. Infants are unable to even recognize their own sin. Children can recognize their own sins. That’s why punishment isn’t appropriate for an infant. Why do you think disciplinary action in school happens as early as pre-school? Why do you think discipline starts to get stricter as early as Grade 1? It’s because children are capable of understanding what they did wrong and what sin is. Children understand their sinfulness and therefore, they’re candidates to hear the Gospel of Jesus. Infants are incapable of doing so, that’s why disciplining an infant is a no-no.
I could easily remember the argument with a former housekeep. She would say that babies are the best candidates for baptism because they’re so pure and innocent. I argued that babies can’t repent of their sins. In 2 Samuel 12, we can read how Nathan confronted David like any good accountability partner would. It was during that time when David took Bathsheba as one of his many wives. That incident alone proves how womanizing can lead from one sin to another. David had a child conceived of adultery. The child died but David had the confidence he would see that same son again. Sure, the baby suffered as a consequence of David’s behavior. Once again, before people were baptized, they had to be aware of their sinfulness. Peter’s message was for people who have done the unthinkable–many of them were participants in Jesus’ crucifixion. These people wouldn’t make the “best candidates” for baptism? However, the moment they repented of their sins, they were soon baptized. Peter’s message of baptism was for forgiven sinners, not innocent infants!
What I even found so funny was a chapel in my former Jesuit parish. I could remember a painting illustrating the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Even Catholic translations tell us Jesus got into the water and out of the water. Parents who wanted to have their baby baptized had to attend this pre-Jordan seminar. Isn’t it downright contradicting? They don’t see the contradiction and they follow it anyway. Some still insist that babies are the best candidates for baptism, because of their innocence. Even worse, the best argument is, “Because Rome said so!” However, John the Baptist was preaching repentance to those whom he baptized. That’s why John the Baptist soon felt that he should be baptized by the Lord Jesus Christ instead. Jesus is the Son of God and therefore, He knew no sin at all! Jesus came to be baptized to fulfill all righteousness.
Unfortunately, too many people still think that their infant baptism had them born again. However, to be truly born again in Christ Jesus is to repent of one’s sins and then receive Him as one’s personal Lord and Savior. Being born again is not a denomination or religion. It’s all about a personal relationship with Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior.
Reformed Baptist Christian Blogger 