Catholics, please?

Question

Explain to me the significance of sprinkling an Infant and calling it Baptism? Is it really about original sin? Do you believe that a SIDS baby would go to a place called Limbo? Where does this idea come from? Give me some insight on this, please! I grew up Catholic and I don't really get it.

So far, everyone who gave me a serious answer is supporting my case. Please explain to me how a baby can "repent" prior to being sprinkled, and how "going down in the water" also relates to being sprinkled?

Answer 1

And you never will since none of it is biblical.

Answer 2

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "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."

Infant baptism is not a new thing. There are non-biblical documented sources starting in the second century telling of infant Baptism.

There are even several passages in the Bible where whole households were baptized. This would include everyone who lived there, men, women, children, and infants.

Acts 16:15, "After she and her household had been baptized"

Acts 16:33, "then he and all his family were baptized at once."

Acts 18:8, "came to believe in the Lord along with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard believed and were baptized."

1 Corinthians 1:16, "I baptized the household of Stephanas"

St. Paul wrote that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col 2:11-12), and in Judaism circumcision was performed primarily on infants.

With love in Christ.

Answer 3

You will have to come up with a better discourse than this. The Church did away with the Limbo thing years ago.

Please read:

Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16 ... suggests baptism of all, incl. children.
Jn 3:5; Rom 6:4; Mk 16:16 ... necessity of baptism.
Col 2:11-12 ... circumcision (normally performed on infants c.f. Lk 2:21; Gen 17:12) replaced by baptism.
Acts 22:16 ... baptism removes sin.
1 Pet 3:21 ... baptism saves by water.

Answer 4

Jesus said, "...make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

So according to Jesus, the way we make someone a disciple is through Baptism and instruction.


Paul said, "By grace are you saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves--it is the gift of God. Not by works, lest any man should boast."

So if we are saved by grace, through faith, and not by works, then salvation is not something we can take for ourselves. Salvation does not come by saying a particular prayer, nor does it come by "accepting" something.

Salvation is bestowed upon a person through Baptism (which is an act performed upon a person--it is not the recipient's own work). It is then developed to maturity through instruction, with Confirmation being the Church's declaration that a person has received the instruction that is normally common to all Christians.


When Baptism is understood in this way, baptizing an infant not only makes sense, but is the obvious thing for a Christian family to do.

p.s., why does everyone in R&S assume that only Catholics baptize infants? I'm Lutheran.

Answer 5

The idea of limbo came about because Catholic theologians had to answer the question of what happens to baptized infants. "Limbo" was the word given to the place of rest for unbaptized babies - they do not have the full beatific vision of God as in Heaven but they are not "unhappy" either.

TO CLARIFY (for those who said otherwise): The Church has never "done away" with Limbo because Limbo has never been a defined dogma. It is the Church's "best guess" to a question that was never answered by Christ or the Scriptures. The idea of limbo is still generally accepted but is not a matter of faith and morals that is binding on every Catholic.

However, every Catholic MUST believe that we do NOT know for certain where unbaptized infants go. We must commend them to Gods' mercy.

Baptism washes away original sin (inherited from Adam and Eve) in an infant and both original sin and actual sins committed when an adult is baptized.

The idea of baptism comes from Christ Himself who said "no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit." (John 3:5). Jesus approved of baptism by water when he let John the Baptist perform this ritual in the Jordan.

The reasons Catholics (and Presbyterians) baptize infants is:

1. St. Peter says ""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). Following this he says "the promise is to you and your children." (Acts 22:16)
2. Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. That includes children. Jesus said "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

Infant baptism has been practiced from the earliest times of the Church. The apostles would baptize entire households. Most Protestants rejected this tradition as a result of the Reformation.

Answer 6

Baptism is about purification from, yes, original sin. In a way it's supposed to give the baby a clean slate and bring it closer to God. I'm pretty sure Catholic Doctrine eliminated the idea of Limbo, and if it did exist an all-forgiving god wouldn't send someone here because they weren't baptised.

Answer 7

Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

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 Fundamentalists 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.) Fundamentalists 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. Fundamentalists 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, Fundamentalists 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?

Answer 8

There is no mention of Limbo in the bible.

Answer 9

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22).

They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect. Despite this wealth of evidence, Protestants are almost equally unanimous in rejecting this truth. In general Protestants regard baptism as something like an ordinance: an observance that does not itself bring about any spiritual effect but merely represents that effect. Its observance may be required by obedience, but it is not necessary in any further sense—certainly not for salvation.

This view requires Protestants to explain away all the New Testament passages on the nature of baptism as figurative language. It is not baptism itself, they assert, but what baptism represents, that really saves us. Yet the language of the New Testament on this point is so uniform that they cannot even dredge up a couple of "proof-texts" on baptism to support this view or their figurative reading of all the other passages. There is one text that Protestants occasionally mention.

In 1 Corinthians 1:14–17 Paul wrote that he was glad that he himself had baptized so few of the Corinthians, since they could not say that they were baptized in his name; and he went on to say, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. . . ." Needless to say, this passage doesn’t say anything about baptism only representing spiritual realities, or not really saving. It doesn’t say anything about how those who accepted Paul’s preaching of the gospel were then saved. Paul didn’t write, "For I was not sent to baptize but to pray with people to accept Jesus as their personal Savior" (or even "to lead people to faith"). Paul didn’t pit faith against baptism. Nor did he pit preaching against baptism.

He would hardly have contradicted the great commission in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Paul’s point was not that God didn’t want him to baptize, only that preaching was the driving force of his evangelistic ministry. In short, Paul’s remark doesn’t remotely support the Protestant view of baptism, or justify a figurative interpretation of all the other passages. Yet this is the closest thing to a Protestant proof-text!

The early Fathers were equally unanimous in affirming baptism as a means of grace. They all recognized the Bible’s teaching that "[In the ark] a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, 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" (1 Pet. 3:20–21, emphasis added).

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "From the beginning baptism was the universally accepted rite of admission to the Church. . . . As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out again ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit . . .the Spirit is God himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism . . . our heart was the abode of demons . . . [but] baptism supplies us with the weapons for our spiritual warfare" (Early Christian Doctrines, 193–4).

The Letter of Barnabas
"Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, ‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls" (Letter of Barnabas 11:1–10 [A.D. 74]).

Peace and every blessing!

Answer 10

You have already stated that you were once Catholic and converted to another faith so you are only looking for fight.

Answer 11

i am not catholic but maybe the parents want to bless their baby